R. S. A. No. 2536 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2536 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 19, 2010 Smt. Roshni Devi and another .... Appellants Vs. Smt. Ram Kali and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jitendra Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants Roshni Devi and her mother Dharmo Devi having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, have filed the instant second appeal. Respondents Ram Kali and Gina Devi (plaintiffs) filed suit against the appellants. Plaintiffs and defendant no.2 are real sisters being daughters of Major Thandi Ram, whereas defendant no.1 is daughter of defendant no.2. Vide consent decree dated 05.11.1985 suffered by Major Thandi Ram in favour of defendant no.2, defendant no.2 was declared owner in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs challenged the said R. S. A. No. 2536 of 2008 2 decree by filing civil suit. Vide decree dated 14.03.1986, which was also a consent decree, earlier consent decree dated 05.11.1985, which was in favour of defendant no.2, was set aside. In another suit filed subsequently by the plaintiffs, compromise decree dated 16.09.1992 was passed, whereby defendant no.2 herein was given life estate in the suit property and after her death, the plaintiffs are to become owners in possession of the suit property. However, in spite of the said compromise decree dated 16.09.1992, defendant no.2, who had only life estate in the suit property, executed release deed dated 19.01.2001 of the suit property in favour of her daughter – defendant no.1. The said release deed has been challenged by the plaintiffs to be having no effect on their rights and being null and void as it is in contravention of decree dated 16.09.1992, according to which defendant no.2 had only life estate and therefore, defendant no.2 could not transfer the suit property to defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 inter alia pleaded that decree dated 16.09.1992 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and the same is illegal and without jurisdiction. It was also pleaded that defendant no.2 became absolute owner of the suit property in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short – the Act). Decree dated 14.03.1986 was also alleged to be null and void. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, vide judgment and decree dated 09.08.2006, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First R. S. A. No. 2536 of 2008 3 appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2008. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Whole claim of the defendants is based on consent decree dated 05.11.1985 suffered in favour of defendant no.2 by Major Thandi Ram. However, said decree dated 05.11.1985 was set aside vide decree dated 14.03.1986. In addition thereto, there was subsequent compromise decree dated 16.09.1992, whereby only life estate was given to defendant no.2 and on her death, the property is to revert to the plaintiffs as owners in possession thereof. In view of said decrees, defendant no.2 had no right to execute the impugned release deed of the suit property in favour of defendant no.1. Consequently, suit has been rightly decreed. Defendants alleged that decree dated 16.09.1992 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. However, defendants have miserably failed to prove the said plea. No fraud or misrepresentation has been proved by the defendants in the passing of the said compromise decree dated 16.09.1992. Both the courts below have arrived at concurrent finding to this effect. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that R. S. A. No. 2536 of 2008 4 defendant no.2 had become absolute owner of the suit property on the passing of the consent decree dated 05.11.1985. It was also contended that even under Section 14 (1) of the Act, defendant no.2 became absolute owner of the suit property and therefore, she had right to execute its release deed in favour of defendant no.1. It was also contended that consent decree dated 14.03.1986 and compromise decree dated 16.09.1992 could not confer any title in the suit property in favour of plaintiffs as the same are unregistered ones and defendant no.2 having become absolute owner of the suit property, could not transfer any right, title or interest in the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs without registered document. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on two judgments of this Court namely Balbir Singh vs. Bant Singh reported as 1996 (3) RCR (Civil) 351 and Rajni Bajaj and others vs. Ram Piari reported as 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 711 (P&H) and also judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major and others reported as 1996 (1) Civil Court Cases 210 (S. C.). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that consent decree dated 05.11.1985 suffered in favour of defendant no.2 was successfully challenged by the plaintiffs vide decree dated 14.03.1986, vide which decree dated 05.11.1985 was set aside. It was also contended that vide compromise decree dated 16.09.1992, defendant no.2 had only life estate in the suit property and therefore, defendant no.2 R. S. A. No. 2536 of 2008 5 was not competent to execute its release deed in favour of defendant no.1 and the said release deed is, therefore, null and void. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Section 14 (1) of the Act is not applicable in view of Section 14 (2) of the Act, which says that sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act shall not be applicable to any property acquired by gift, Will or any other instrument or under decree or order of Civil Court or under Award, where the terms of the gift, Will or other instrument or the decree, order or Award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. In the instant case, decree dated 16.09.1992 gave life estate to defendant no.2 and the same could not ripen into absolute ownership under Section 14 (1) of the Act because of the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Act. In addition to it, the whole claim of defendant no.2 is based on decree dated 05.11.1985. However, the said decree was set aside vide decree dated 14.03.1986. Consequently, on the basis of decree dated 05.11.1985, defendant no.2 could not be said to be owner of the suit property and could not have transferred the same to defendant no.1. Apart from it, even consent decree dated 05.11.1985 in favour of defendant no.2 would require compulsory registration, but was unregistered, as per contention of counsel for the appellants themselves and therefore, the said consent decree could not have conferred any title on defendant no.2 in respect of the suit property. On the contrary, there was dispute between R. S. A. No. 2536 of 2008 6 plaintiffs on the one hand and defendant no.2 on the other hand. They are all sisters. The said dispute was amicably resolved by way of compromise, which resulted in passing of compromise decree dated 16.09.1992. Consequently, the said compromise decree did not require compulsory registration at all. In any event, the said compromise decree conferred life estate on defendant no.2, whereas in the absence thereof, defendant no.2 was left with no right, title or interest in the suit property as consent decree dated 05.11.1985 in her favour had already been set aside vide consent decree dated 14.03.1986. Thus, examined from any angle, defendant no.2 had no right, title or interest in the suit property except the life estate as per compromise decree dated 16.09.1992 and therefore, defendant no.2 was not competent to transfer the suit property to defendant no.1 by way of impugned release deed. The said release deed is thus null and void and has been rightly held to be so by the courts below. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Claim of the defendants throughout is wholly dishonest and unfounded and completely frivolous, vexatious and devoid of any substance. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. August 19, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE