R.S.A No. 423 of 2001 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 423 of 2001 Date of decision : January 07, 2009 Parminder Singh ...... Appellant. through Mr.M.L.Sarin, Sr Advocate with Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate v. Ajmer Kaur and another ...... Respondents through Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 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 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents with regard to their inheritance to the property of their father Pritam Singh. The suit was resisted by the appellant on two grounds; firstly the judgment and decree dated 16.5.1991, which was alleged to have been suffered in his favour by the aforesaid Pritam Singh; and secondly on the basis of a will dated 8.6.1991. Both the Courts below have on facts held against the decree as well as the will. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that it was fully proved that Pritam Singh had in fact suffered a decree. He has relied upon a R.S.A No. 423 of 2001 ::2:: judgment of this Court in Som Dev and others vs Rati Ram and another, 2006(1) PLR 609, wherein this Court, while relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahu Madho Das vs Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481, held as follows :- “....... The consent decree was mere recognition of the aforementioned arrangement, which was the result of some relationship grown out of love and affection. It is for the aforementioned reason that the Supreme Court in Ram Charan Dass's case (supra) has emphasised that every person under the settlement who takes benefit, does not require to be shown to have a claim, under law, to a share in the property. All that is necessary to show is that the parties are related to each other in some way and have a possible claim to the property or even a semblance of claim on some other ground as, say, affection. Such family settlement recognised by a consent decree, therefore, would not involve any element of alienation or transfer as envisaged by Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908.” Learned counsel has, thus, urged that non-registration of the decree could not have prejudiced the appellant. In my opinion, the Courts below have not only relied upon non- registration of the decree but also have dis-believed the alleged family settlement on facts. The recital in the plaint that Pritam Singh was childless was ex-facie wrong. The Courts below have relied upon the fact that Pritam Singh had engaged a servant for cultivating his land and this clearly R.S.A No. 423 of 2001 ::3:: evidenced that he was not joined in hearth and home with the appellant. The Courts below have also taken a dim view of the action of the appellant in putting forward a will just three weeks after having obtained the alleged decree in his favour. As regards the will, both the Courts below have found it to be shrouded in suspicious circumstances. In my opinion, these findings of fact cannot be held to be perverse or not arising from the evidence on record. If two views are possible, it would not be open for this Court sitting in second appeal to substitute its own view and facts with that of the Courts below. In this view of the matter, the questions of law proposed in this appeal are answered against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 07, 2009. JUDGE `kk'