R.S.A. No.1929 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1929 of 2008 Date of Decision:19.09.2008 Gurdial Kaur & Ors. ....appellants Versus Balwant Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. The plaintiffs field a suit against the defendants seeking declaration to the effect that they and the defendants are the joint owners of the land measuring 17 kanlas 7 marlas regarding the share of Chand Singh deceased, as detailed in the head note of the plaint and judgment dated 13.10.1997 in favour of defendants is arbitrary, null and void, inoperative and against law and facts and the same is liable to be set aside. It has further been pleaded that plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 are the joint owners of the suit land Chand Singh s/o Heera Singh @ Hari Singh was the original owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 2/3 share of the total land along with other co-sharers Bachan Singh and Gurdev Singh. Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of Chand Singh while plaintiffs No.2 to 6 and defendants No.1 to 3 are his daughters and sons. It is pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3 in connivance with each other have got effected the alleged consent decree dated 13.10.1997 in their favour. The said decree was obtained by the defendants after playing fraud with the deceased Chand Singh. Neither any compromise nor any family settlement was got effected between deceased Chand Singh and defendants No.1 to 3 and the alleged family settlement never came into R.S.A. No.1929 of 2008 2 existence nor it was given effect to in any revenue record. It has further been pleaded that deceased Chand Singh, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 were the members of the Joint Hindu Family and the property in dispute is also Joint Hindu Family property to the parties. It is stated that the said judgment and decree is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also stated that mutation No.6155 which has been sanctioned in favour of the defendants on the basis of the said consent decree is not binding upon them. Since the defendants are not admitting their claim, hence this suit. The suit was contested by defendant No.1 and it was pleaded that suit property was joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and Chand Singh – father of defendant No.1 to 3 was Karta of the same. It has further been alleged that the defendants were also coparceners with regard to joint Hindu family coparcenary property. It has further been pleaded that the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit property and the same was rightly transferred to the defendants through a legal and valid decree. It has further been pleaded that on the basis of this decree mutation was sanctioned. It has further been alleged that a compromise was effected between Chand Singh and defendants on the basis of which the decree in question was passed. It has further been pleaded that Chand Singh had voluntarily suffered the decree in favour of defendants, therefore, decree in question is in accordance with law. The trial Court found that the suit property was Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property. It was also found by the trial Court that there was no illegality or irregularity in passing of the decree dated 13.10.1997 and the plaintiffs have failed to establish any type of fraud having been played on Chand Singh by defendants. The trial Court also found that the suit property was ancestral property and the defendants were having pre- existing right in joint Hindu family coparcenary property and a compromise R.S.A. No.1929 of 2008 3 between Chand Singh and defendants was rightly effected on the basis of which decree dated 13.10.1997 was passed, therefore, such a decree does not require registration under the provisions of Indian Registration Act. In view of these findings, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed an appeal and the same was dismissed being without any merit by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda by the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.08.2007. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court that a consent decree dated 13.10.1997 was suffered by Chand Singh with his free will and consent. However, Lower Appellate Court found that property in dispute was self acquired property of Chand Singh, deceased and was not ancestral property. It was further held by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda that the said decree does not require registration. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in view of the findings of the Lower Appellate Court to the effect that disputed property was self acquired property of the deceased Chand Singh, the consent decree dated 13.10.1997 suffered by him in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 required registration as there was no pre-existing right of defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit property on the basis of which any alleged family settlement could take place between the deceased Chand Singh and defendants and therefore the Courts below have erred at law while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. R.S.A. No.1929 of 2008 4 On the basis of the said arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has sought to raise the substantial question of law as to whether a consent decree suffered regarding self acquired property requires registration? I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. The facts are not in dispute. However, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived. Defendants No. 1 to 3 in whose favour the consent decree has been suffered, are the sons of Chand Singh who voluntarily suffered the consent decree. So relationship of father and sons existed between the parties to the consent decree. A perusal of the record shows that Chand Singh appeared in the case and suffered statement for admitting the rights of defendants on the basis of oral family partition. A family arrangement can be entered between the parties who have some semblance of rights in property. Sons or the near family members always have semblance of rights. In the case of family settlement amongst family members it is only necessary to show the relationship of parties, on account of which it can reasonably be inferred that they had possible claim to the property or semblance of claim on some other ground. As and when a consent decree is suffered by father in favour of his sons on the basis of oral family settlement, then registration of the decree is not required at all as per ratio of the case Jai Lal vs. Chhattar Singh & ors. 2005 PLR (1) 585 and Som Dev vs. Rati RamCXL-II(2006-1)609. Moreover, an oral family settlement is permissible in Punjab and as such sufferance of a consent decree on the basis of family settlement is quite appropriate. So, said decree does not require registration because respondents being sons of Chand Singh were having existing rights. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Om Parkash vs. Shiv Shankar &Ors. CXI-(2005-3) PLR 585, Bant Singh vs. Lakhbir Singh CXL-(2005-2)PLR 846. Krishani Devi and Ors. vs. R.S.A. No.1929 of 2008 5 Shamsher Singh and Ors. 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 611. So, it is not a case in which rights on the basis of the family settlement were conferred for the first time through, judgment Ex.P-5 and decree Ex.P-6 by Chand Singh in favour of his sons namely respondents No.1 to 3. Thus, the decree does not require registration. In view of the discussion made above, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, in the case of Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major & Ors. 1996 Civil Court Cases 210 (S.C.) and Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri & Ors. Vs. Gangubaj Raghunath Ayare & Ors. 2007 (4) Civil Court Cases 079 (Bombay), are not applicable in the instant case. Moreover, the consent decree dated 13.10.1997 has not been challenged by the appellants for want of registration by taking specific plea in that respect in the pleadings and this plea was raised only before the Lower Appellate Court, for the first time. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 19.09.2008 neenu