IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.3588 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.2.2009 Rohtas and others. ....... Appellant through Shri Swaran Singh,Senior Advocate with Shri N.S.Rapri, Advocate. Versus Rur Chand and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.10658-C of 2008 The application is allowed and delay of 60 days in the filing of the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.3588 of 2008 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 18.1.2005 and 15.2.2008 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa (hereinafter described as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellant no. 1 and his mother- Smt. R.S.A.No.3588 of 2008 -2- .... Rameshwari were dismissed with costs. A suit for declaration was filed by appellant no.1 and Smt. Rameshwari to the effect that they along with respondent no.1 were coparceners of the suit land which was detailed in the plaint; that respondent nos. 2 to 8 were having no concern with the same; that respondent no.1 was not competent to transfer the said land by way of a collusive decree dated 9.6.1999 in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 6 which was passed in Civil Suit No.325 of 17.5.1999 and that the said decree was illegal, null & void and result of fraud. It was pleaded by appellant no.1 and Smt.Rameshwari that they & respondent no.1 were members of the coparcenary family and respondent nos. 2 to 8 were not members of the joint Hindu family and the decree aforesaid was result of fraud. It was further pleaded that the family settlement pleaded in the above suit was stated to have been reduced into writing and once that was done, the same required compulsory registration and without having been done so, it could not have been accepted for conferring any right on respondent nos. 2 to 6. Upon notice, respondent no.1 filed his written statement supporting the case of appellant no.1 and Smt. Rameshwari, whereas respondent nos. 2 to 6, in their separate written statement, categorically averred that the suit land was neither ancestral nor coparcenary and that it was previously owned by Gobind Ram, who was their father and also of respondent no.1, grand-father of appellant no.1 and father-in-law of Smt. Rameshwari. It was further averred that Gobind Ram was a tenant over land measuring 101 Bighas approximately and he used to cultivate the same with R.S.A.No.3588 of 2008 -3- .... his sons, namely, Rur Chand, Daulat Ram, Jaimal Ram, Sohan Lal, Bhom Raj alias Bhom Chander and Om Parkash and they all constituted a joint Hindu family with him and thereafter, Gobind Ram became the owner of the said land by acquiring occupancy right and in this way, he and his sons became the owner of 600 kanals of land and out of the same about 109 kanals 10 marlas of land was in the name of Rur Chand, who was his eldest son. After the death of Gobind Ram, the land which was owned and possessed by him came in equal shares to all his six sons and two daughters by way of inheritance. Mutation in this regard was sanctioned on 27.2.1996. Since the land measuring 109 kanals 18 marlas was in excess in the name of respondent no.1, which belonged to Gobind Ram and to save the same from being declared as surplus, the girdawari had been got changed in the name of respondent no.1, it was also to be inherited by all the heirs of Gobind Ram. It was pleaded that by way of inheritance, respondent no.1 got 24 kanal, making his total land 133 kanals, whereas the remaining heirs of Gobind Ram got 98/99 kanals each. To equalize the land between all the legal heirs of Gobind Ram, a family settlement was arrived at and a writing was made to that effect in the bahi on 11.5.1999, pursuant to which the collusive decree was passed. Respondent nos. 7 and 8 also filed their joint written statement supporting the case of respondent nos. 2 to 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 are owners in R.S.A.No.3588 of 2008 -4- .... possession of the suit land being coparceners?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and thus, they are not entitled to any relief?OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for want of proper court fee?OPD 8. Relief. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the plea raised by appellant no.1 and Smt. Rameshwari had no merit and consequently, it dismissed the suit. In appeal, the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Feeling aggrieved, appellant no.1 and his two sisters, namely, Indira Devi and Pushpa Devi, have filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the findings of the Courts below and contended that the collusive decree as well as the family R.S.A.No.3588 of 2008 -5- .... settlement which was reduced into writing, required compulsory registration. He also contended that the collusive decree was the result of fraud. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments. Appellant no.1 was the signatory to the family settlement which was duly scribed in the bahi, a copy whereof was proved on record as Exhibit D1. This is also signed by respondent no.1. There is no denial to the fact that respondent no.1 was in possession of more share of the property than the other legal heirs of Gobind Ram. Appellant no.1 has not been able to produce any evidence that his signatures were obtained on the family settlement by misrepresentation, coercion or fraud. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse warranting any interference in the Regular Second Appeal. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is dismissed being devoid of any merit. February 24,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge