R.S.A No. 3468 of 2005 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3468 of 2005 Date of decision : July 06, 2009 Ram Chander, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Laxman Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** 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 the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for a declaration that the decree dated 25.4.1992 in Civil Suit No.134 of 1992 titled as `Laxman vs Jeevan' is illegal, null and void. Counsel for the appellant has proposed the following substantial questions of law :- “ (a) Whether there is any mis-appreciation or non- reading of the evidence by the courts below ? R.S.A No. 3468 of 2005 ::2:: (b) Whether the consent decree dated 25.4.1992 is required to be registered ?” As regards the first question, counsel for the appellant has taken me through the findings of the Courts below but has not been able to convince me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or that they are based on such a misreading of evidence as would lead to a conclusion that the judgment is perverse. As regards the second question, the Courts below have relied upon a catena of judgments to hold that such kind of consent decree between the uncle and nephews is not compulsorily registerable. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show me any contrary judgment. Consequently, the questions of law are decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 06, 2009. JUDGE `kk'