Regular Second Appeal No. 195 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 195 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.9.2011 Ram Kunwar and Others ... Appellants Versus Sukhmender and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The plaintiffs, having failed in two rounds of litigation, have approached this Court by filing the present regular second appeal. To appreciate the controversy, it will be necessary to notice the relationship, as divulged by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, during the course of arguments. It is stated that Jas Ram had two sons namely Ramji Lal and Hari Singh. Ramji Lal had two daughters namely Sama Kaur and Chota. Ramji Lal's brother Hari Singh had one son namely Ram Kumar. Ram Kumar had two sons namely Sukhmender and Preetam. The suit was filed by Sama Kaur, who is now represented through her legal heirs. It is an admitted fact that the defendants are sons of the nephew of Ramji Lal, father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal No. 195 of 2011 2 had filed a suit for declaration praying that the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1990, on the basis of which mutation No. 1261 dated 27.9.1991 was sanctioned, be set aside as the same are illegal, void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. In case, the Court finds that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property, a decree for joint possession be issued. Briefly stated, it was pleaded in the suit that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of 1/4th share in the house situated in the abadi of village Jhalri, detail and description whereof has been given in paragraph No.2 of the plaint. It was pleaded that Ram Kumar, father of the defendants, had started claiming in the village that the plaintiffs are not owning the suit property, upon which the plaintiffs contacted Patwari Halqua of village Jhalri and came to know that on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1990, passed in Civil Suit No. 1001 dated 2.8.1990, the defendants had become owners of the property and on the basis thereof, mutation No. 1261 has been sanctioned in favour of the defendants on 27.9.1991. It was pleaded that the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1990 is not binding as a result of fraud. Learned counsel for the appellants has very fairly submitted that both the Courts below have negated the plea of fraud and misrepresentation and had upheld the judgment and decree, passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 1001, instituted on 2.8.1990. However, learned counsel submits that the only legal argument, which arises for consideration of this Court, in the present regular second appeal, is that the decree was not registered and, therefore, it could not be acted upon. It is further submitted that sons of the nephew of Ramji Lal, father of the Regular Second Appeal No. 195 of 2011 3 plaintiffs, have no pre-existing right in the suit property. The trial Court has held that the word “family” in the context of family arrangement is not to be considered in a narrow sense since the defendants are none else than the sons of a nephew, who will fall within the extended meaning of “family” and hence, consent decree, on the basis of a family settlement, will not require registration. In support of the conclusions, the trial Court had relied upon various judgments. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to cite a judgment which should compel this Court to form a contrary view. Furthermore, the trial Court has also held that the suit was barred by limitation as the decree dated 13.10.1990 was challenged in the present suit in the year 1999. Having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the regular second appeal when learned counsel for the appellants has failed to formulate any question of law, much less a substantial one, during the course of arguments. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 19, 2011 “DK”