RSA No. 2678 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2678 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20-07-2009 Darshan Singh ......Appellant Versus Gurdial Singh and others .......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 Sumeet Goyal, Advocate, for Ms. Manjri Nehru, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration challenging the consent decree dated 11.12.1989, was dismissed. As per the facts on record, the property in dispute was purchased by the parties to the suit vide registered sale deed dated 7.3.1967, Exhibit P.6. Subsequently, the defendants filed a suit against the present plaintiff on 20.10.1989. In the said suit, the present plaintiff appeared on11.12.1989 and filed admitted written statement Exhibit P.2. The statement Exhibit P.3 of the present plaintiff was recorded. He was identified by Gurnam Singh, Lambardar. Consequently, on the basis of the said statement, judgment and decree, Exhibits P.4 and P.5, were passed on 11.12.1989. The plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree RSA No. 2678 of 2009 (2) on the ground that the said decree is a result of fraud and, therefore, ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff-appellant. Both the Courts while returning a concurrent finding of fact, have taken into consideration all the factors, including the statement of DW.3-Gurnam Singh, Lambardar, to the effect that the present plaintiff suffered a decree in favour of the defendants and that the statement of the plaintiff was recorded in the Court and he has signed the same after admitting the same to be correct. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the aforesaid judgment and decree created rights in favour of the defendants (plaintiffs in the previous suit) for the first time and, therefore, it requires registration. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument. The plaintiffs are co-vendees with the present plaintiff in the sale deed dated 7.3.1967. If co-vendees have settled rights amongst themselves as members of a family being brothers and nephew(s), the same does not create rights the favour of his near relations, for the first time. Both the Courts have examined the evidence in minute detail to return a finding of fact that the decree dated 11.12.1989 is not actuated by fraud. I do not find any ground to interfere in the present second appeal. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. The findings recorded by the Courts below, do not give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20.7.2009 ds