RSA No.1302 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1302 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2010 Nishan Singh & anr. .... Appellants versus Sawaran Singh & ors. ....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Kunaal Chhoker, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.S.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ajay Tewari J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondent and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant claiming that two decrees obtained by the respondent from the appellants could not affect their rights. The appellants had filed a suit that the respondent being karta of the family had fraudulently obtained signatures/thumb impression of the plaintiff and had thereby obtained the consent decrees. Both the Courts held that fraud has not been established. However, the learned trial Court relying upon the case of Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major, AIR 1996, S.C., page 196 held that the said decrees were compulsorily registrable. The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, reversed the finding regarding registration and thereby dismissed the suit. The following question have been proposed:- i. Whether the impugned judgment and decrees in civil suit no.99 of 1995 and suit no.123 of 1995 dated 4.3.1995 and the impugned decrees dated 21.10.1995 RSA No.1302 of 2005 (O&M) -2- and 2.11.1995 are required to be registered or not? ii. Whether the judgments and decrees where no written family partition took place between the parties require registration. iii. Whether the learned lower appellate court has passed the impugned judgment and decree by mis-construed and mis-reading the evidence led by the parties? As regards question No.i learned Lower Appellate Court rightly held that the compulsorily registrable decrees enumerated in the case of Bhoop Singh's case (supra) would not include decrees such as the present ones, since the present case was decided by a family agreement between parties who had antecedent rights in the property. Consequently, question no.i has to be held against the appellant. Regarding question No.ii, learned counsel has not been able to show any law which lays down that it is only a decree based on a written family partition which requires no registration. As regards question No.iii, learned counsel has taken me through the concurrent findings of the courts below recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In this view, all the questions proposed have to be answered against the appeal. This appeal is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE 17.02.2010 sonika