Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 09, 2009 Maktul ......... Appellant versus Rajbir Singh .......... Respondent Present:- Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for declaration challenging the consent decree suffered by Atra on 5.5.1995 in favour of Rajbir, grandson of Karta, was dismissed. One Nanak had two sons, namely, Mangla and Karta. Atra is son of Mangla and died issueless. During his life time, he suffered a decree in respect of the share of property measuring 23 Kanals 9 Marlas and a house constructed thereon in favour of Rajbir s/o Sahaja s/o Karta. The plaintiff is the other son of Karta. The plaintiff has challenged the decree on the ground that Rajbir has no pre-existing right in the property of Atra and, therefore, the decree suffered by Atra requires registration. In the absence of registration, the decree will not confer any legal right in favour of the defendant. Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 2009 [2] Both the learned Courts below have dismissed the suit holding that the decree suffered by Atra is legal and valid and that Rajbir is a member of the family of Atra and such decree does not require registration. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of this Court reported as Chalti Devi and others vs. Rajinder Kumar and another, 2004(1) Current Law Journal, 58 to contend that Rajbir is not a member of the family of Atra and, therefore, the decree suffered in favour of Rajbir, who is a stranger to the family of Atra, requires registration. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument of learned counsel for the appellants. Atra had died issueless. Defendant Rajbir is not a stranger. He is the grandson of his father's brother. In Kale and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807, it has been held that family does not mean persons who have a right to succeed to the estate but also the person who have contingent interest in the estate and would include the persons who have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of claim. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, it cannot be said that Rajbir is not a member of the family of Atra. The judgment in Chalti Devi's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable. In the said case, Chalti Devi has purportedly suffered decree in favour of the defendants who were the sons of her brother-in-law even when she has her own family i.e., three sons. It is a question of fact in each case whether the beneficiary under the decree is a member of the family or not. In the absence of any other legal heir, the decree suffered by Atra in favour of Rajbir cannot be said to be in the absence of any pre- existing right which may require registration. Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 2009 [3] In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Courts below which may give rise to any substantial question of law for determination of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. September 09, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE