IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1835 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.11. 2008 Jagdish Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Ugam Bai and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 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? Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Jagat Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This is an appeal filed against the judgement and decree dated 21.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari whereby he allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and decreed their suit to the effect that the earlier consent decree obtained by appellant Jagdish whereby his five paternal aunts (Buas) were stated to have relinquished their share in his favour to the exclusion of their other brother, was vitiated by fraud. Learned lower Appellate Court has found as a fact that one of the Buas came and stated that at the time of the earlier decree they were given to understand that only half of their respective shares was being relinquished in favour of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that this finding of fact is perverse since the written record of the proceedings of the earlier RSA No. 1835 of 2005 -2- decree cannot be set aside by the oral testimony. In my opinion, however, it cannot be said that in view of the statement of one of the Buas which has remained unshaken in cross- examination it can be held that this finding of fact is so palpably perverse as to be held to be not arising from the material on the record of the case. Learned counsel for the appellants has also canvassed that the suit having been filed after 16 years of the earlier decree was hopelessly time barred. In this connection the learned lower Appellate Court has believed the version of the respondents that they came to know about the earlier decree only in the year 1996. This again is a question of fact which is not possible for me to reappreciate in the second appeal. The third attack by the learned counsel for the appellants is to the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court that the decree is also vitiated on the ground of it having been compulsorily registrable. In my opinion no exception can be had to this view since admittedly appellant Jagdish had no pre-existing right in the shares of his aunts and, therefore, their relinquishment in his favour would require registration. For this purpose learned lower Appellate Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh V. Ram Singh reported as AIR 1996 SC 196. Consequently I hold that the questions of law proposed in this appeal do not arise and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 05, 2008 sunita