IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2116 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.10.2008 Sandeep Satiya and another ...Appellants. Versus Surinder Kumar and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiffs having remained unsuccessful before the courts below have approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 passed by the District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Devision), Pehowa dated 4.9.2006 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration, was affirmed. Sans unessentials, the facts of the case are that Rajinder Kumar (defendant No.4), father of the plaintiffs, was recorded as owner in possession of the land measuring 10 kanals, fully detailed in para 1 of the plaint. It was pleaded that there was some matrimonial dispute between the parents of the plaintiffs as their mother wanted the suit land to be transferred in her name to secure maintenance for life and taking the benefit of this development, defendants No.1 to 3 who are real brothers of plaintiffs' father, filed Civil Suit No. 153 of 1994 against defendant No.4 for declaration to the effect that they had become owners in possession of the suit land in view of a family settlement with R.S.A. No. 2116 of 2008 -2- the understanding that the decree so obtained would never be acted upon. A collusive decree based on the false family settlement was passed on 9.2.1994. According to the plaintiffs, they challenged the said decree being not binding upon their rights as the same was without consideration, by mis-representation and based on fraud and was, therefore, liable to be declared as null, void, non-effective and collusive. It was also pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3 were not the members of their family and were not having pre-existing rights in the suit land and, therefore, also the said decree was liable to be set aside. To controvert the stand of the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 3 filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that there was neither any matrimonial dispute between defendants No.4 and 5 nor was there any talk of transfer of property between them. It was further pleaded that the answering defendants had filed the civil suit on the basis of a family settlement arrived at between them and defendant No.4 on 10.6.1993 and as per the family settlement, the suit land was given to them in equal shares and the possession thereof was delivered to them on the same day. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties held that the decree dated 9.2.1994 was not illegal, null and void and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the R.S.A. No. 2116 of 2008 -3- plaintiffs approached the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the impugned judgments very carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the decree dated 9.2.1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 153 of 1994 was a collusive decree based upon false pleadings of family settlement and without consideration and the same required registration. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The courts below had recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the decree suffered by their father (defendant No.4) in favour of his real brothers was illegal, null and void. Further, it was recorded that since the suit land was self- acquired property in the hands of defendant No.4 (Rajinder Kumar), the plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the collusive decree during the life time of said Rajinder Kumar, defendant No.4. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. October 17, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE