-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 12, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M). Kehri ... Appellant VERSUS Smt. Parkashi Devi widow of Duli Chand and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit against Duli Chand (since deceased and represented by the respondents- defendants) for declaration with consequential relief of -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M). permanent injunction in respect of the property in dispute was dismissed by both the Courts below. I have heard Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant and Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate, appearing for defendants-respondents and have perused the impugned judgments. Plaintiff-appellant Kehri is the real brother of Duli Chand (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-defendants). The plaintiff-appellant alleged that Duli Chand had taken him (plaintiff) to District Courts, Sonepat, on the pretext that he wanted to get his share separated from the total holdings and he (Duli Chand) engaged counsel on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. Duli Chand allegedly got thumb impression of plaintiff-appellant on some forms and blank papers and got a decree passed in his (Duli Chand's) favour regarding the transfer of 1/12th share of plaintiff, vide Civil Suit No.879 of 1997 titled Duli Chand Vs. Kehri decided on 21.2.1998 wrongly and illegally. The plaintiff- appellant alleged that no family settlement had arrived at between the two brothers i.e plaintiff-appellant Kehri and Duli Chand (deceased). The plaintiff-appellant impugned the said judgment and decree dated 21.2.1998 in the instant suit on the ground that it was obtained by Duli Chand by playing fraud on the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant further averred that the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1998 had been obtained by Duli Chand on the ground that plaintiff was issueless whereas -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M). the plaintiff is having legally adopted son, namely, Balister, who was adopted vide registered Adoption Deed dated 7.65.1983. The plaintiff averred that he along with his adopted son Balister were owners in possession of the suit property. The allegations of the plaintiff-appellant were denied by Duli Chand. He claimed possession over the suit property on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 4.12.1997 when the plaintiff had received sale consideration from him (Duli Chand) and handed over the suit property to him (Duli Chand). It was denied that the impugned decree had been obtained by Duli Chand by playing fraud on plaintiff Kehri. The plaintiff was having knowledge about the Court proceedings and he had sold away his agricultural land measuring 5 Kanals 11 Marlas to Ram Dhan son of Kansi vide sale deed dated 11.6.1996. According to Duli Chand, the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1998 were got passed with the consent of plaintiff Kehri in terms of the family settlement. Duli Chand had also raised a counter claim that in case the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1998 were set aside, in that eventuality, his (Duli Chand's) claim for specific performance of the agreement dated 4.12.1997 may be allowed. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to establish the factum of fraud played by Duli Chand (since deceased) upon his brother Kehri (plaintiff-appellant). The judgment and decree dated 21.2.1998 (Exhibits P.7 and P.8, -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M). respectively) were passed on the basis of compromise (Exhibit C.1), which is Exhibit P.6 in the instant suit, arrived at between the parties. Besides, plaintiff-appellant Kehri had made a statement before the Court vouchsafing the compromise (Exhibit C.1) on the basis of which judgment and decree dated 21.2.1998 were passed. Mr. Subash Tyagi, Advocate (D.W.6) deposed that compromise (Exhibit C.1) was got typed by him on the asking of plaintiff-appellant Kehri and Duli Chand and after admitting its contents to be correct, Duli Chand had put his signatures and appellant Kehri had thumb marked the same. He further deposed that appellant Kehri was identified by Mr.B.P. Tyagi, Advocate, who appeared as D.W.7 and corroborated the stand taken by Mr.Subhash Tyagi, Advocate (D.W.6). In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1998 (Exhibits P.7 and P.8, respectively) were the result of compromise (Exhibit C.1) between the parties. Once it is so held, all other objections raised by the plaintiff-appellant, mentioned above, pale into insignificance. No doubt, the decree dated 21.2.1998 was not registered, but it is well-settled that decree based on family settlement does not require registration. Taking into account all these facts and the evidence led by the respective parties, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M). Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 12, 2011. JUDGE ak