RSA No.2635 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6383-C of 2006 & RSA No.2635 of 2006 Decided on : 19.01.2010 Satbir & another ... Appellants versus Santosh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for respondent. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for declaration that a decree dated 19.05.1992 obtained by the appellants was illegal and fraudulent. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the respondent was owner of 12 kanals of land. The appellants were nephews of the deceased father of the respondent and obtained a decree whereby one of the nephews was given 8 kanlas of land and the other was given 4 kanals of land. Both the Courts below have found that the plea of the appellants that the decree was RSA No.2635 of 2006 -2- passed on the basis of a family settlement arrived between the appellants and the father of the respondent could not be established. Consequently, both the courts below expressed doubts about the reasons why the uncle of the appellants disinherited his only daughter and gave his entire land to them during his life-time. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the compromise deed (Ex. D-2) can be ignored simply because the statement of Mohan Lal was not recorded in the Court and instead the statement of the plaintiff in the suit namely Satbir was recorded along with the signatures of the counsel for all the parties, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Jineshwar Dass's case 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 606 (SC)? ii) Whether the courts below have erred in ignoring the well settled principle of law that the onus of proving the impugned decree to be fraudulent lies upon the plaintiff and not the defendants? iii) Whether a decree passed on the basis of compromise between the parties during the pendency of the suit is not compulsorily registerable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amteshwar Anand's case 2006 (1) CCC 337 SC? iv) Whether an oral family settlement is admissible in evidence in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble RSA No.2635 of 2006 -3- Supreme Court in Kale's case AIR 1976 SC 807? v) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are patently illegal, ultra-vires void and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside? vi) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been caused to the appellants in the matter? The only question which has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is questions No.(i) which is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of evidence so as to render them perverse. Once question No.(i) is held against the appellant and it is found that the compromise deed was vitiated by fraud, other proposed questions do not arise. Holding the proposed questions against the appellants, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. January 19, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE