RSA No.3083 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3083 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 24.12.2010 Kitab Devi .....Appellant Versus Vijay singh and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. J. K. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Manmeet Kaur, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.9124-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main appeal. Kitab Devi having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Case of appellant-plaintiff is that her father Dhara was owner in possession of suit land measuring 92 kanals 15 marlas being 1/5th share of 463 kanals 13 marlas land. Dhara died on 20.04.1996. Consequently, the plaintiff-appellant being his sole legal heir inherited the suit land and became owner in possession thereof. However, defendant No.1 started alleging that he is owner of the suit land on the basis of alleged consent decree dated 12.11.1986 passed in his favour against plaintiff's father Dhara and on the basis thereof, the plaintiff also entered into possession of the suit land in pliantiff's absence. However, defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest in the suit land and consent decree dated 12.11.1986 is not RSA No.3083 of 2010 (O & M) -2- binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought possession of the suit land. Defendants contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that prior to the year 1984, the plaintiff's father Dhara was owner in possession of the suit land, but in family settlement in the year 1984, defendant No.1 became owner in possession thereof. Consent decree dated 12.11.1986 was passed on the basis of said family settlement declaring defendant No.1 herein to be owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff herself transferred residential house to defendant No.1 vide gift deed dated 15.11.1996. Dhara used to reside with the defendants, who had been rendering services to him. Defendant No.2 is father of defendant No.1. Plaintiff has no concern with the suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2007 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 03.04.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there could be no family settlement in the year 1980 as pleaded by defendant No.1 in his previous suit in which consent decree dated 12.11.1986 was passed as defendant No.1 was born in the year 1982. It was also contended that suit land was ancestral property of RSA No.3083 of 2010 (O & M) -3- plaintiff's father and, therefore, the same could not be transferred by way of consent decree which is unregistered. It was also submitted that plaintiff being sole legal heir of her father has become owner of the suit land and is, therefore, entitled to possession thereof. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. Plaintiff's father Dhara was owner in possession of the suit land. It is not even pleaded by the plaintiff that suit land was ancestral of plaintiff's father nor there is any documentary evidence to prove it. According to plaintiff's own version, Dhara had no male issue. Consequently, even if it be assumed that it was ancestral land of Dhara, even then he was absolute owner being last male holder. Plaintiff was not part of coparcenary being daugther of Dhara at that time as daughters were not members of coparcenary before amendment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the year 2005. Thus examined from any angle, Dhara was absolute owner of the suit land and, therefore, plaintiff has no right or locus standi to challenge the consent decree suffered by Dhara. It may be added that Dhara remained alive for almost 10 years after suffering the consent decree, but he never challenged it. It is also worth mentioning that Dhara was residing with defendants and was being rendered services by defendant No.2, who is father of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is nephew i.e brother's son of Dhara. Consequently, there could be valid family settlement between Dhara and defendants and the same, therefore, did not require compulsory registration. In addition to the aforesaid, it has to be noticed that plaintiff executed gift deed dated 15.11.1996 regarding residential house (not RSA No.3083 of 2010 (O & M) -4- subject matter of the suit). However, in the witness box, the plaintiff went to the extent of denying her photograph as well as thumb impressions on the said gift deed. Defendants have, therefore, examined finger print expert to prove that the said gift deed had been thumb marked by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also affirmed affidavit dated 15.11.1996 Ex.DW-7/2. In that affidavit, the plaintiff admitted that her father had suffered the aforesaid consent decree and the plaintiff owned and accepted the same. She expressed her consent about the said decree. Compromise Ex.DW- 10/A dated 19.08.1996 was also effected between the parties and in that compromise also, the plaintiff admitted and accepted the consent decree in question. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that aforesaid documents amount to relinquishment of title in the suit land and, therefore, required compulsory registration. The contention is misconceived and devoid of substance because the said documents cannot be said to be documents of relinquishment of title in the suit land. On the contrary, by the said documents, the plaintiff simply admitted and accepted and consented to the decree dated 12.11.1986 which had already been suffered by the plaintiff's father in favour of defendant No.1. There is concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below against the plaintiff-appellant. The said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons and is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The plaintiff in fact has no locus standi to challenge the consent decree suffered by her father. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 24.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE