RSA No.4169 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4169 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8.7.2009 Randhir Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Satbir and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the decree dated 31.3.1995 suffered by Daryao Singh, father of appellant No.1 and grandfather of appellant No.2, has been declared illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Daryao Singh-plaintiff had three sons, namely, Randhir Singh; Ram Singh and Satbir Singh and a daughter Shanti Devi. On 31.3.1995, one suit was filed by Randhir Singh son of Daryao Singh, Manoj and Parveen sons of Ram Singh son of Daryao Singh against Daryao Singh. It was asserted that the property is a joint Hindu family property and in view of the family settlement, the land in dispute has fallen to the share of the plaintiff. On the same day, admission written statement was filed by Daryao RSA No.4169 of 2008 (2) Singh and on the basis of the said written statement, decree was passed in favour of the present defendants. Another suit was filed by Randhir Singh son of Daryao Singh, Manoj and Parveen, sons of Ram Singh against Satbir Singh, another son of Daryao Singh and Shanti, daughter of Daryao Singh. In the aforesaid case, again it was pleaded that the property is a joint Hindu family property and on the basis of admission written statement filed, a decree was passed in favour of the present defendants. The decree suffered by Daryao Singh on 31.3.1995 was challenged by Daryao Singh in a suit filed on 23.10.1998 on the ground that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers, which have been used by the defendants for the purpose of decree. It was the case of the plaintiff that he intended to bequeath his entire property in equal shares to his three sons but fraudulently, the defendants have obtained a consent decree against his intention. Daryao Singh has also appeared as a witness before the trial Court as PW1. He was cross-examined. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the decree dated 31.3.1995 is null and void. It was also found that the said decree requires registration and that for the lack of registration the same cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the property was a joint Hindu family property. In the earlier suit, the plaintiff has appeared as a witness and admitted the claim of the present defendants. Such statement was made before the Court and that the plaintiff was also identified in the Court. Therefore, it was not open to the plaintiff to dispute the passing of the decree on the ground of alleged fraud. It is also contended that the two decrees were passed on the same day i.e. 31.3.1995, RSA No.4169 of 2008 (3) which settles the share of three sons of Daryao Singh in equitable manner. Therefore, the decree could not be challenged by the plaintiff merely on change of mind in the manner of bequest. A perusal of the records shows that both the suits were filed on the same day and decrees passed on the date of filing of the suit itself. A conjoint reading of both the decrees shows that Satbir Singh has not got any share in the property. Therefore, the stand of Daryao Singh that the decrees have been obtained by the defendant-appellants so as to oust Satbir Singh, his third son of his share in the property, is actually borne out from the documents on record. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 08-07-2009 ds