Family Settlement--Even if, one of the parties to the settlement had no apparent antecedent title, but under the arrangement, the other party relinquishes all its claims or title, in favour of such a person, and acknowledges him, to be the sole owner, then antecedent title was to be presumed, and the family settlement was liable to be upheld.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674
S.14(2)--Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937--Appellant had no locus-standi, to challenge the judgment and decree as the wife of the deceased inheterted the property under the Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937 and become the absolute owner under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act--Competent to alienate the same as she likes--Decree did not require registration as was passed on the basis of legal and valid family settlement also, confer right and title to the party--The finding of the facts recorded by Courts below being based on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence and law on the point do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and warrant no inference by High Court--The substantial question of law in answered, against the appellant and thus appeal in dismissed.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674
S.14(2)--Registration Act, 1908, S.17--Decree passed on the basis of a legal and valid family settlement--Does not require registration--Conferred all the rights and title to the other party.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674
