R. S. A. No. 2057 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2057 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 10, 2011 Lichhami Devi and others .... Appellants Vs. Smt. Bharpai and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 5746-C of 2011 : It is stated that Annexures A-2 to A-7 are part of the lower court record, but Annexure A-1 is not part of evidence. Accordingly, prayer for placing on record Annexure A-1 is declined. Annexures A-2 to A-7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Appeal : Plaintiffs, who were successful in the trial court, but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, have filed the instant second appeal. R. S. A. No. 2057 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Plaintiffs in the suit challenged consent decree dated 29.10.1992 suffered by one Fatta in favour of Zile Singh and Sat Narain (defendants no.1 and 2 herein) and sought consequential relief. Nanhu had three sons i.e. Fatta, Manphool and Moti Ram. Manphool died in the year 1970 or prior to it. His inheritance mutation was sanctioned on 13.08.1970 in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 herein, who are his sons. Fatta died in the year 1996. Moti Ram died in the year 2001. Moti Ram's son Ram Diya pre-deceased him in the year 1997. Plaintiffs are legal heirs of said Ram Diya being his widow, two minor daughters and a minor son. The plaintiffs alleged that transfer of one-third share of Fatta in the suit land in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 by way of consent decree dated 29.10.1992 is null and void. Defendants no.1 and 2 got the said decree fraudulently without consent and knowledge of Fatta. It was also pleaded that Fatta never appeared in the suit, in which consent decree was passed nor he filed written statement in that suit nor made statement in Court in that suit admitting the claim of defendants no.1 and 2 herein, who were plaintiffs in that suit. His thumb impressions might have been obtained by misrepresentation and used to obtain the impugned consent decree. Various other pleas were also raised. Defendants no.1 and 2 contested the suit and defended the impugned consent decree. It was pleaded that Fatta suffered the same voluntarily. Defendants no.1 and 2 had been serving Fatta. After death of R. S. A. No. 2057 of 2011 (O&M) 3 father of defendants no.1 and 2, they were brought up by Fatta, who also performed their marriages. Moti Ram (predecessor of plaintiffs) resided separately from Fatta. Various other pleas were also raised. Will allegedly executed by Fatta in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 was also set up. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. However, two first appeals preferred separately by defendant no.1 Zile Singh and defendant no.2 Sat Narain have been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, vide common judgment and decrees dated 10.02.2011 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal as well as connected R. S. A. No. 2058 of 2011 titled Lichhami Devi and others Vs. Sat Narain and others because there were two first appeals. Both these second appeals shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the impugned consent decree was obtained by impersonation or by misrepresentation and fraud. On the contrary, plaintiffs have proved that the said decree was suffered by Fatta himself. Fatta also made statement in the Court in the previous suit, in which consent decree was passed. Statement made in the R. S. A. No. 2057 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Court cannot be said to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or by using blank paper bearing thumb impressions of Fatta. It is manifest that plea to this effect taken by the plaintiffs is patently unreliable and untenable. Statement recorded in the Court carries great sanctity. It cannot be said that the same was recorded on blank paper bearing thumb impressions. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that consent decree was suffered by Fatta on the plea of relinquishment of his share in the suit land in favour of defendants no.1 and 2, and therefore, consent decree in question required compulsory registration, but is un- registered and is, therefore, null and void. It was also contended that alleged family settlement between defendants no.1 and 2 herein and Fatta has not been proved and for this reason also, consent decree is null and void. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on three judgments of this Court namely Shishpal vs. Vikram reported as (1999- 2) The Punjab Law Reporter 136, Rajni Bajaj and others vs. Ram Piari reported as 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 711 (P&H) and Surjit Kaur vs. Gurdev Singh reported as 2000 (1) Civil Court Cases 253 (P&H) and also on a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rukayya Bai vs. Munni Bai and another reported as 2004 (3) R. C. R. (Civil) 489. R. S. A. No. 2057 of 2011 (O&M) 5 I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find myself unable to accept the same. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to pick up the word `relinquishment' in isolation. On the other hand, consent decree was suffered on the basis of family settlement, whereby share of Fatta was relinquished in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 herein. Thus, family settlement was the basis of the consent decree in question. Courts in India have always recognized the concept the family settlement among Hindus. In the instant case, the family settlement was between Fatta and his real nephews i.e. defendants no.1 and 2 herein. Said family settlement did not require compulsory registration. In the subsequent suit, said family settlement is not required to be proved again. Consent decree can be challenged in subsequent suit on the ground of fraud etc., but not on the ground that facts pleaded in the suit leading to the consent decree were incorrect. Court in subsequent suit cannot go behind the earlier decree (because that decree settles rights of parties) and find out as to whether the earlier consent decree was passed on right or wrong facts. Subsequent court is not entitled to go into facts to find whether on that basis, earlier consent decree could be passed or not. This view finds support from judgment of this Court in the case of Harpal and others vs. Smt. Ram Piari and others reported as 1981 P. L. J. 492. Such challenge in subsequent suit is also barred by principle of estoppel and res judicata. Judgments of this R. S. A. No. 2057 of 2011 (O&M) 6 Court namely Smt. Maha Devi and others vs. Smt. Lichhman and others reported as 1978 P. L. J. 379 and Smt. Har Kaur vs. Smt. Dhappan (died) and others reported as 1986 P. L. J. 94 support this view. Even otherwise, plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the consent decree in question. Fatta himself remained alive for almost four years after suffering the consent decree, but he never challenged the same. Not only that, even Moti Ram (predecessor of plaintiffs) remained alive for another five years after death of Fatta i.e. for nine years after the consent decree in question was passed. Even Moti Ram never challenged the same. The plaintiffs herein have also challenged the said consent decree by filing the instant suit on 17.01.2006 i.e. after expiry of 13-14 years. It would also depict that the consent decree was genuine and was suffered by Fatta himself voluntarily. If the consent decree had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or by impersonation etc., plaintiffs or their predecessor Ram Diya or Moti Ram would not have remained silent for 13-14 years. Moreover, the suit is also barred by limitation to challenge the consent decree in question having been instituted more than 13 years after the said decree was suffered. For the reasons aforesaid, finding recorded by the lower appellate court to non-suit the plaintiffs cannot be said to be perverse or R. S. A. No. 2057 of 2011 (O&M) 7 illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in these second appeals. Accordingly, both these appeals i.e. R. S. A. No. 2057 of 2011 and R. S. A. No. 2058 of 2011 are dismissed in limine. May 10, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE