available on record to prove that the suit properties were purchased from the funds of joint family properties rather the evidence is that the same were purchased by the individuals from their own sources and as such no prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffspetitioners for their entitlement. Still further, in fact, the plaintiffspetitioners have been unable to show that they are having any preexisting rights in the suit property rather only on the basis of the alleged family settlement dated 18.6.2008 (P.1), they are trying to derive their rights for the first time, which is yet to be proved. The language of the so-called family settlement dated 18.6.2008 does not indicate the confirmation of any pre-existing right. In fact, it only creates right in prasenti. The very language of the memorandum which records that “this family settlement is being written on 18.6.2008 (P.1) and in order to settle the dispute between the parties with the intervention of the respectables, close relatives, the present indent of family settlement is being arrived at between the parties to this writing” (emphasis supplied) would show that the rights are being created in prasenti in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, the aforesaid family settlement would be required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 (2) (vi) of the Registration Act as held by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maturi Pullaiah and another v. Maturi Narsimha and others, AIR 1966 SC 1836. It is admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid family settlement is an unregistered document, therefore, no prima facie reliance can be placed
