The reasoning of the High Court in holding Exhibit-A6 as a family settlement that would be binding on the parties. The agreement's intent was clear to settle the property in a manner that maintained family harmony and accounted for Plaintiff No. 2’s needs and circumstances.

Key Points of Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Exhibit-A6:

   • The document is interpreted based on its language. It does not create a new right but acknowledges an agreed-upon settlement among family members.
   • It reflects a mutual agreement to allot the western half to Plaintiff No. 2 and keep the eastern portion for later division among the brothers and sister.

2. Admissibility and Enforceability:

   • The High Court correctly noted that objections to a document's admissibility should be raised at the trial stage. Since Exhibit-A6 was accepted during the trial without objection, its admissibility stands.
   • The document was deemed a family settlement, which, under Section 24(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, does not require strict adherence to the parties' status as direct heirs.
   • The lack of registration and proper stamp duty was considered but did not invalidate the document's essence as an agreement.

3. Family Settlement and Mohammedan Law:

   • Even under Mohammedan Law, family members can settle property among themselves, and such agreements are typically honored if they aim to preserve family harmony.
   • Plaintiff No. 2, though not a direct heir, was included in the settlement due to her special circumstances, and this inclusion was agreed upon by all relevant parties.

4. Trial Court’s Findings and High Court’s Reversal:

   • The Trial Court acknowledged the execution of Exhibit-A6 but invalidated it on technical grounds related to gift law (hiba).
   • The High Court reversed this, emphasizing the settlement nature of Exhibit-A6 and the family’s intent to provide for Plaintiff No. 2.

Conclusion:

Exhibit-A6, though not a traditional partition deed, served as a family arrangement that the parties intended to honor. The High Court’s decision to uphold this agreement aligns with legal principles that favor the fulfillment of family settlements, particularly when they serve to address specific familial needs and prevent disputes. Thus, the appeal by the legal representatives of Defendant No. 2 does not present grounds sufficient to overturn the High Court's judgment.

Orders:

The Civil Appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court in A.S. No. 22 of 2007 is upheld. The parties are directed to proceed with the partition in accordance with Exhibit-A6, ensuring Plaintiff No. 2 receives the western half portion as agreed. No order as to costs.