R.S.A. No. 1424 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1424 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.03.2009 Smt. Vidya Devi ....Appellant Versus Abhmanue (dead) through LRs ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2006 passed by the learned Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1996 suffered by the plaintiff/appellant in favour of the defendant/respondent. By way of judgment and decree dated 31.5.1996, the plaintiff suffered a decree in favour of the defendant/respondent i.e. her son transferring land measuring 45 kanals 2 marlas. In pursuance to the judgment and decree, mutation was also sanctioned on 12.7.1996. The R.S.A. No. 1424 of 2007 (O&M) -2- mutation was also challenged. The plaintiff/appellant claimed that the judgment and decree was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation, as she was misled to suffer this decree on the plea that she was to sign documents for family pension. It is further the case set up by the plaintiff that it was only when the defendant/respondent tried to demolish the bara, she came to know about the passing of the decree, and consequently challenged the same. The defendant/respondent contested the suit, and averments on merit were denied. It was specifically denied that the decree was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff/appellant has failed to prove the fraud and misrepresentation. The learned Courts below further held that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was time barred, as the decree was suffered on 31.5.1996 by the plaintiff/appellant whereas suit was filed on 27.2.2003 i.e. beyond the period of limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the decree under which the right to property is transferred for the first time, would need registration and failure thereof would result in decree to be null and void? 2. Whether in view of the fidutiary relationship between the parties, the suit could be held to be barred by limitation when specific stand was taken that she was misled to suffer the decree?” In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned R.S.A. No. 1424 of 2007 (O&M) -3- counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the suit property was acquired by the plaintiff/appellant by way of civil Court decree and, therefore, was self-acquired property of the plaintiff/appellant and the transfer of said property in favour of defendant/respondent created title in favour of defendant for the first time, therefore, the decree in absence of registration could not pass any title to the plaintiff/appellant. This plea is strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on ground that once the plaintiff/appellant herself suffered a decree, it was not open to her to challenge the decree for want of registration. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Rajjo Vs. Jawahar Singh, 2007(1) HRR 395, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under: - “11. The only question that now survives is as to whether a party, who has suffered a consent decree, can challenge it on the ground of non-registration. In my opinion, the party, who has suffered the decree, can challenge it on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation alone and not on the ground of non- registration. Either the concerned party denies the very genesis of the decree by saying that it was the result of fraud, misrepresentation and that there was no intention to suffer the decree, but to say that after suffering the decree that the same was not registered is not permissible. It has been held by this Court in the judgment reported as 2000(1) Civil Court Cases 188 (P&H) Parveen Kumar Versus Shiv Ram alias Sheo Ram that the person, who has suffered the decree, cannot challenge it on the ground of non-registration. R.S.A. No. 1424 of 2007 (O&M) -4- The decree can be challenged only on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or if it has been passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The party who suffers the consent decree is estopped by his own conduct to challenge the same except on the grounds mentioned above. There has to be sanctity accorded to the statements made before the Courts. It was so held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as AIR 2001 S.C. 2790, Salkia Businessmen's Association and others Versus Howrah Municipal Corporation and others, wherein it was observed as under: - The memorandum and terms of the compromise in this case became part of the orders of the High Court itself when the writ petition was finally disposed of in terms of the compromise reached between the parties notwithstanding that there was no verbatim reproduction of the same in the order. While so, it is beyond one's comprehension as to how any violation of terms of compromise could have been viewed by the Court as a matter of mere contract between parties and under that pretext absolve itself of the responsibility to enforce it, except by doing violence to the terms thereof in letter and spirit. If Courts are not to honour and implement their own orders, and encourage party litigants be they public authorities, to invent methods of their own to short circuit and give a go-bye to the obligations and liabilities incurred by them under orders of the Court – the rule of law will certainly become a casualty in the process – a costly consequence to be jealously averted by all and at any rate by highest Courts in States in the Country." Thus, in view of the settled law, the first substantial question R.S.A. No. 1424 of 2007 (O&M) -5- of law is answered against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the learned Courts below wrongly held the suit to be time barred, though there was a positive stand by the plaintiff/appellant that she was misled to suffer this decree by her son, and in view of the fidutiary relationship, she had no knowledge of decree. Thus, there is an error of law in holding the suit to be time barred, as stand taken could not be disbelieved. This plea cannot be accepted, in view of the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, which reads as under: - "The above said statement of Sh. Pawan Kumar, Advocate DW3 proves the fact that the plaintiff Vidhya Devi did appear in the court on 14.5.96 and engaged Sh. Pawan Kumar, Advocate DW3 as his counsel and filed written statement. It is also proved on record that Smt. Vidhya Devi gave a statement on 14.5.96 in the court admitting the claim of the plaintiff. There is thumb impressions of Smt. Vidhya Devi under her statement and there is also signature of Sh. Pawan Kumar, Advocate near the thumb impression of Smt. Vidhya Devi. Further, it has been verified by Sh. Prithvi Ram, Panch that he knew the defendant personally and that she had affixed her thumb impression in his presence. The above said Prithvi Ram Panch is the real 'Nandoi' of the plaintiff Smt. Vidhya Devi and this fact has been admitted by the plaintiff Vidhya Devi PW1 in her cross-examination. Further, Sh. Prithvi Ram Panch has not been examined by the plaintiff to prove the fact that she did not appear in the court on 14.5.96. Therefore, it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiff did appear in R.S.A. No. 1424 of 2007 (O&M) -6- court on 14.5.96, engaged her counsel, filed written statement admitting the claim of the then plaintiff, made her statement and consequently, the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.5.96 Ex. D1 and Ex. D2 respectively were passed. Thus, in view of the finding of fact, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below on limitation are perverse or outcome of non-consideration of evidence led by plaintiff, as contended. Consequently, both the substantial questios of law are answered against the plaintiff/appellant, and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 30, 2009 R.S.