IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.842 of 2004 Decided on : 27.08.2009 Shri Ram ... Appellant versus Hanuman & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for respondents. 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 appellant, challenging a decree suffered by him in favour of the respondents No.1 to 3 to the tune of 99 kanals and 1 marlas of land (out of which 74 kanals & 4 marlas was in village Alipura Bareta while 24 kanals 17 marlas in village Phool). Learned counsel has submitted that with regard to the land at village Alipura Bareta, the appellant may not have been able to prove that the same was ancestral property but with regard to the property in village Phool it had been definitely established that the same was coparcenary property. There are two salient facts, which are not disputed. The first is that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was the owner of RSA No.842 of 2004 -2- roughly 161 kanals of land. It is also admitted by the appellant himself that one chunk of 56 kanals odd of land was purchased by his father in his name. It is also not disputed by the appellant that apart from that land his father also suffered a decree in his favour with respect to another parcel of coparcenary property. It is also not disputed that ultimately both the coparceners of the family received almost identical land. It is against this background that the following questions have been proposed: i) Whether a decree creating a right in property worth more than Rs.100/- for the first time requires compulsory registration? ii)Whether the respondents who had no pre existing right in the property could acquire any right therein on the basis of unregistered document? iii)Whether the Courts below have misread the evidence produced? iv)Whether the courts below have misdirected themselves regarding the plea of limitation? v)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the suit could be held to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? It would be seen that questions No.(i) & (ii) are related. I find that the Courts below have correctly held that the decree in favour of the respondents did not require registration. Question No.(iii) is pure question of fact and in view of the fact mentioned above I have not been able to persuade myself that the findings thereon are either based on no evidence or on such RSA No.842 of 2004 -3- misreading of evidence so as to render them perverse which would justify interference under Section 100 of CPC. Once these salient questions are answered against the appellant, questions No.(iv) & (v) do not arise. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. August 27, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE