RSA No.3266 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3266 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 23 , 2009 Urmila Devi ...... Appellant Versus Babu Lal Ramesh and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuj Balian, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff whereby he challenged the consent decree suffered by his mother in favour of the appellant (the daughter-in-law). The brief facts are that mother Hardevi was owner in possession of 214 odd kanals of land. She originally suffered a decree in favour of the husband of the appellant and respondent No.1 whereby she divested herself of the ownership and passed her ownership to her two RSA No.3266 of 2006 (O&M) 2 sons. Subsequently Hardevi challenged that decree. In that suit a compromise was arrived at whereby it was alleged that all the share holders would retain 1/3rd share of the land and that after the death of Hardevi her two sons would be owners in equal shares of the property. Subsequently Hardevi suffered a decree of that 1/3rd share in favour of the appellant. It was that decree which was challenged by the respondent by way of the instant civil suit primarily on three grounds: (i) that the property was actually the HUF property; (ii) that in view of the earlier compromise Hardevi was not competent to suffer the decree and (iii) that the decree suffered by Hardevi required registration. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree is sustainable in the eyes of law? ii)Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of mis-interpretation and misreading of the evidence? iii)Whether the impugned judgment and decree has resulted into the miscarriage of justice to the appellant? iv)Whether the impugned judgment and decree being sketchy, cryptic carries any value in the eyes of law? It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has argued that the Courts below have correctly found that the property in dispute was not Joint Hindu Family property but have erred in construing the earlier compromise and in holding that the decree in favour of the appellant required registration. With regard to the interpretation of the compromise learned Senior Advocate has taken me through the same. The compromise in question is Ex.DW11/6 which has three clauses: the first clause simply records that the parties have been held entitled to 1/3rd share each; the RSA No.3266 of 2006 (O&M) 3 second clause lays down that with regard to the property which has come to the share of the plaintiff (Hardevi) she would be full owner in possession during her life time and that after her death the defendants viz. her two sons would be owners in possession of ½ share each. Clause three records that the defendants are the sons of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has four daughters; that the plaintiff and her husband had given to the said four daughters adequate dowry at their respective marriages and that even now the plaintiff gave them customary gifts. The plaintiff further goes on to state that after her death her two sons would adequately take care of this aspect. The plaintiff further records that she has decided to give the property in her share to her sons after her death. The compromise ends with a declaration by the plaintiff that the suit property is her self acquired property and even the law authorises her to dispose of the property coming to her share in any manner. Learned Senior Advocate has argued that in fact, clause 3 supersedes clause 2 and can at best be construed as a Will. He has further argued that once clause 3 is held to be the governing clause and the compromise is held to be in the nature of a Will, Hardevi had full competence to suffer the decree in favour of the appellant. In my opinion this is not so and in fact the rights of the parties were settled by clause 2. Clause 3 was intended to imbue the defendants with a sense of traditional duty towards their sisters and was intended to ward off any attack by the sisters to the said disposition of the property. In my opinion the said clause cannot in any way supersede the categoric assertion contained in clause 2 whereby plaintiff Hardevi accepted in the compromise that she had got the property in dispute only for her life time. In this view of the matter I hold that the compromise has been RSA No.3266 of 2006 (O&M) 4 correctly construed by the Courts below. Once it has been held that the earlier compromise did not entitle Hardevi to suffer decree in favour of the appellant, the question whether the said decree required registration or not is rendered academic. Consequently this appeal and the application for stay as well are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 23, 2009 sunita`