RSA No. 3165 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3165 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.9.2009 Sohan Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Salinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The legal heirs of defendant No.1 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 5 kanals 3 marlas being 1/5th share of land measuring 25 kanals 16 marlas, on the basis of consent decree dated 4.6.1990 suffered by his grand mother Shammo, was decreed. One Shammo was owner of the land measuring 25 kanals 16 marlas. In a suit filed by Salinder Singh, the then minor through his mother as a natural guardian against Shammo, she suffered a consent decree in favour of the present plaintiff through his attorney Dharam Singh, none- else but father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming that Shammo having suffered decree in his favour, the plaintiff has RSA No. 3165 of 2009 (2) become owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants, the other legal heirs of Shammo have no right to interfere in the title and possession of the plaintiff. It is defendant No.1, who contested the suit. It was alleged that the suit is false as Dharam Singh has betrayed the family. Dharam Singh was appointed as an attorney in the case filed by Ajit Singh but by taking benefit of such power of attorney, he suffered a decree in favour of his son (the present plaintiff). Therefore, the said decree cannot be given effect to. The main issue which was examined by both the Courts below, was whether Dharam Singh was duly constituted attorney of Shammo, and as such competent to suffer a decree in favour of his son on 4.6.1990. It has been found that the defendant has not produced the alleged power of attorney so as to show restriction on the right of Dharam Singh to contest the suit on behalf of Shammo filed by Ajit Singh. In the absence of such power of attorney, the decree suffered by Shammo, through her attorney was found to be binding on the defendant. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the decree in favour of the plaintiff was creating right in his favour for the first time and, therefore, it requires registration. Reliance is placed upon Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 196. However, the said argument is not tenable for the reason that the plaintiff Shailender Singh is not a stranger to Shammo, but he is her grand son. The Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807, has held that the family settlement which is arrived at between the members of the family, does not require registration. The plaintiff is a member Shammo's family. Therefore, such RSA No. 3165 of 2009 (3) family settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and his grand mother Shammo does not require registration. It was on the basis of such family settlement that the previous decree dated 4.6.1990 was granted by the Civil Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Milkha Singh and others v. Nirmal Singh and others, 2008(1) PLR 302, to contend that the verification in the suit which led to the decree dated 4.6.1990 was defective. The reliance on such judgment is wholly untenable. That was a case, where the evidence was led on the basis of an affidavit. Such affidavit was found to be defectively verified. In the present case, on the basis of plaint filed, decree was granted on 4.6.1990. Such decree cannot be permitted to be disputed on the ground of improper verification in the subsequent suit, more so when no argument was raised before the Courts below. Finding of facts recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed by way of reappreciation of evidence. However, it could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 02-09-2009 ds