IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3883 of 2006 Date of Decision: 27.4.2010 Makhan Singh and others ....... Appellants through Shri S.C.Khunger, Advocate with Ms.Sajita Raj, Advocate. Versus Ranjit Kaur and others. ....... Respondent nos. 7 & 8 through Shri Vikas Kumar, Advocate. Respondent nos. 1 to 6 ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The defendants are in second appeal. Dayal Singh (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives and four others had instituted a suit against the defendants for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was prayed that they be declared owners in possession of 4/9 share of the land measuring 143 kanals 14 marlas and 4/27 share of land measuring 5 kanals and 9 marlas, as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. It was R.S.A.No.3883 of 2006 -2- .... further prayed that the defendants be also restrained permanently from alienating any share out of the land of khewat nos.340 & 414 and further restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the aforesaid land. The plaintiffs had claimed that the suit land had come to them on the basis of a decree dated 29.8.1980 passed in civil suit no.695 of 1980 titled “Dayal Singh Versus Makhan Singh”. The defendants disputed the decree dated 29.8.1980 on the basis of fraud and claimed that they were owners in possession of the property in dispute. Both the Courts below decreed the suit which has resulted in filing of the instant appeal. The sole contention that has been raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants is that decree dated 29.8.1980 being an unregistered document could not have been recognized in law. In support thereof, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in Bhoop Singh Versus Ram Singh Major and others, 1996(1) Civil Court Cases 210 (S.C.) and a judgment of this Court in Jai Narain Versus Smt.Sona Devi, 2006(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 213 (P&H). On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents has contended that there is a distinction between a compromise decree and a consent decree and referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh's case (supra) to submit that the consent decree passed on admission does not require registration. He further contended that this issue was never raised before the Courts below and the only ground on R.S.A.No.3883 of 2006 -3- .... which decree dated 29.8.1980 was questioned by the defendants was on the basis of fraud which was not proved and further that a person, who is a party to the decree cannot question it on the ground that the same has not been registered and the only ground available to him or her is fraud & misrepresentation which was pleaded by the defendants, but was not proved. He, thus, submitted that the defendants-appellants are precluded from raising the plea which they are now raising. To support his contentions, he placed reliance on paragraph 19 of the judgment in Bhoop Singh's case (supra) and a judgment of this Court in Parveen Kumar Versus Shiv Ram alias Sheo Ram, 2000(1) Civil Court Cases 188 (P&H). I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have perused the impugned judgments. There is no doubt that the defendants had actively participated in the passing of decree dated 29.8.1980 which is now being challenged by them on the ground of fraud. However, they have failed to substantiate this plea. They did not challenge the said decree on the ground of non- registration and even otherwise, since they were actively participated in the passing of it, they were estopped from challenging the same on the ground non-registration. A person, who is party to a decree, cannot turn around and challenge the same simply on the ground that it was a nullity being unregistered. Besides, in Bhoop Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows:- “19. Now, let us see whether on the strength of the decree passed in Suit No.215 of 1973, the petitioner could sustain his R.S.A.No.3883 of 2006 -4- .... case as put up in his written statement in the present suit, despite, the decree not having been registered. According to us, it cannot for two reasons: (1) The decree having purported to create right or title in the plaintiff for the first time that is not being a declaration of pre-existing right, did require registration. It may also be pointed out that the first suit cannot really be said to have been decreed on the basis of compromise, as the suit was decreed “in view of the written statement filed by the defendant admitting the claim of the plaintiff to be correct”. Decreeing of suit in such a situation is covered by Order 12 Rule 6, and not by Order 23 Rule 3, which deals with compromise of suit, whereas the former is on the basis of judgment on admissions. (2) A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the first appellate Court held the decree in question as “collusive” as it was with a view to defeat the right of others who had bona fide claim over the property of Ganpat. Learned Judge of the High Court also took the same view.” In view of the above, the plea of the defendants-appellants raised before this Court is, therefore, without any merit and is rejected. As a consequence, since no other point has been raised, the appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed. April 27,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge