RSA No. 1544 of 2004(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1544 of 2004(O&M) Date of Decision: July 24, 2009 Baru Ram ...... Appellant Versus Sat Pal and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court wherein the finding on issue no.2 recorded by the trial Court was reversed. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the learned lower Appellate Court is justified in holding that the decree under challenge was not required compulsory registration,where the property came to the hands of the person for first time? ii)Whether the learned lower Appellate Court is justified in reverting the findings on issue No.2 in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court of India? iii)Whether a collusive decree passed between the parties where RSA No. 1544 of 2004(O&M) 2 there is no family settlement and admitted the rights to the property created for the first time? iv)Whether the learned lower Appellate Court is justified in holding that the decree dated 5.2.1993 needs no registration in view of the 1996 AIR SC 196, 2000(1) C&R JR 676? It would be seen that questions No (i) to (iv) all relate to the requirement or otherwise of compulsory registration of the decree. The appellant had filed a suit challenging the decree suffered by his father in favour of his brothers. The father of defendant No.1 filed a written statement asserting that the property was self acquired property. Learned trial Court without disputing the assertion that it was self acquired property of the father still went on to hold that the decree suffered by him required registration relying upon the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, reported as AIR 1996 SC 196. In appeal the learned lower Appellate Court reversed this finding. In Som Dev and others v. Rati Ram and another, reported as 2006(1) PLR 609, this Court held as under:- “........It is for the aforementioned reason that the Supreme Court in Ram Charan Dass's case (supra) has emphasized that every person under the settlement who takes benefit, does not require to be shown to have a claim, under law, to a share in the property. All that is necessary to show is that the parties are related to each other in some way and have a possible claim to the property or even a semblance of claim on some other ground as, say, affection. Such family settlement recognized by a consent decree, therefore, would not involve any element of alienation or transfer as envisaged by Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908.” Appeal against the above judgment has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Dev and others v. Rati Ram and another AIR 2006 SC 3297, wherein RSA No. 1544 of 2004(O&M) 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court also discussed the case of Bhoop Singh (AIR 1996 SC 196) holding as follows:- “12. We shall now examine the decision in Bhoop Singh. What was involved therein was a decree based on admission. It is to be noted that in that case it was a decree that crated the right. The decree that is quoted in para 2 of that judgment was to the effect: “It is ordered that a declaratory decree in respect of the property in suit fully detailed in the heading of the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff will be the owner in possession from today in lieu of the defendant after his death and the plaintiff deserves his name to be incorporated as such in the revenue papers, is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.......” Therefore, it was a case of the right being created by the decree for the first time unlike in the present case. In para 13 of that judgment it is stated that the Court must enquire whether a document has recorded unqualified and unconditional words of present demise of right, title and interest in the property and if the document extinguishes that right of one and seeks to confer it on the other, in requires registration. But with respect, it must be pointed out that a decree order of a court does not require registration if it is not based on a compromise on the ground that clauses (b) and ( c ) of Section 17 of the Registration Act are attracted. Even a decree on a compromise does not require registration if it does not take in property that is not the subject-matter of the suit. A decree or order of a court is normally binding on those who are parties to it unless it is shown by resort to Section 44 of the Evidence act that the same is one avoidable on any ground known to law. But otherwise that decree is operative and going by the plain language o Section 17 of the Registration Act, particularly, in the RSA No. 1544 of 2004(O&M) 4 context of sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (2) in the background of the legislative history, it cannot be said that a decree based on admission requires registration. On the facts of that case, it is seen that their Lordships proceeded on the basis that it was the decree on admission that created the title for the first time. It is obvious that it was treated as a case coming under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act, though the scope of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act was discussed in detail. But on the facts of this case, as we have indicated and as found by the courts, it is not a case of a decree creating for the first time a right, title or interest in the present plaintiff and his brother. The present is a case where they were putting forward in the suit a right based on an earlier transaction of relinquishment or family arrangement by which they had acquired interest in the property scheduled tothat plaint. Clearly Section 17(1) (a) is not attracted. It is interesting to note that their Lordships who rendered the judgment in Bhoop Singh themselves distinguished the decision therein in S. Noordin v. V.S. Thiru Venkita Reddiar on the basis that in Bhoop Singh there was no pre-existing right to the properties between the parties, but a right was sought to be created for the first time under the compromise. Their Lordships proceeded to hold that in a case where the plaintiff had obtained an attachment before the judgment on certain properties, the said properties would become subject- matter of the suit and a compromise decree relating to those properties came within the exception in Section 17 (2)(vi) of the Act and such a compromise decree did not require registration. Merely because the defendant in that suit in the written statement admitted the arrangement pleaded by the plaintiff, it could not be held that by that pleading a right was being created in the plaintiffs and a decree based on such an admission in RSA No. 1544 of 2004(O&M) 5 pleading would require registration. We are satisfied that the decision in Bhoop Singh is clearly distinguishable on facts. We may notice once again that all the courts have found that it was as a part of a family arrangement that the defendant in the earlier suit relinquished his interest in favour of the present plaintiff and his brother and such a family arrangement has been held even in Bhoop Singh not to require registration.” In the circumstances, it cannot be held that such a family settlement requires compulsory registration.” In view of what I have held above and in the respectful agreement with the judgment of this court in Som Dev's case (supra) I hold that the questions proposed do not arise in the present appeal. Consequently the same is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 24, 2009 sunita