R.S.A No. 2567 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2567 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : February 10, 2010 Rajinder, ...... Appellant (s) v. Smt. Sarwati and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. *** 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant whereby he had challenged a decree suffered by his uncle (father's brother) Jiwan Lal in favour of respondents No.4 to 6 who were the sons of the brother of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have found that a large part of the property of Jiwan Lal was self acquired property and with regard to the land which was inherited by him from his father Sanwaliya, the same was not proved to be ancestral because the inheritance of Sanwaliya was not proved. R.S.A No. 2567 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the consent decree is bad for want of registration, particularly when the beneficiary of the consent decree was not having any pre-existing right in the property ? ii) Whether the consent decree is not proved to be based upon the family settlement in which the plaintiff- appellant was not a party to the settlement ? iii) Whether the property in question is proved to be ancestral property and the plaintiff-appellant was having the birth right in the property of Jiwan Lal, being reversionary ? iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decree are legally required to be set aside in view of the decree being the result of fraud and fabrication ?” As regards question No. (ii), once the owner has not objected to the consent decree, it can not be argued by the appellant that he was not a party to the family settlement. As far as question No. (i) is concerned, both the Courts below have rightly held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhup Singh vs Ram Singh Major, 1995(3) RRR 541 has now been eroded with the subsequent judgments reported as S.Noordin v. V.S.Thiru Venkita Reddiar, (1996)2 SCR 261 and Som Dev and others v. Rati Ram and another, AIR 2006 SC 3297. As regards question No. (iii), once it was not proved that the property was inherited by Sanwaliya, the same cannot be held to be ancestral property. Question No. (iv) is a general question to which no R.S.A No. 2567 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: answer is required. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 10, 2010. JUDGE `kk'