RSA No. 2814 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2814 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.10.2011 Brij Mohan ....Appellant Vs. Hari Chand alias Hari Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the appellant. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs-appellants (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiffs') have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2009 passed by the first Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Palwal, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration that they and the defendants are the owners and in possession of residential house, as fully detailed in para No.1-A of the plaint to the extent of 1/6th share each and they are also owners in possession of the land, as fully described in para No.1- B of the plaint to the extent of 1/6th share each. The plaintiffs have claimed that earlier father of the parties was owner of the suit property, including the agricultural land, which was purchased in the name of the defendants. Some RSA No. 2814 of 2010 (O&M) 2 agricultural land was owned by their father, about which, he suffered a collusive decree in favour of the plaintiffs Anand Sarup, Gian Chand and Raju and the property, as mentioned in Para No.1-B of the plaint, was transferred in favour of plaintiff Birju and the defendants as per family settlement. It was further averred that previously, a suit titled as 'Hari Singh and others Vs. Dan Singh' was filed regarding residential property, which was decreed on 03.01.1994. Thereafter, again on 23.01.2001, a family settlement took place between the parties, according to which, the property mentioned in para No.1-A and 1-B of the plaint was allegedly partitioned by metes and bounds and the plaintiffs became the owners and in possession of their share in the suit property. However, defendants started disowning the family settlement. Consequently, the plaintiffs have claimed that after the family settlement, the collusive decree dated 03.01.1994 has become illegal and ineffective and they along with defendants be held as owners and in possession of the house, detailed in para No.1-A and 1-B of the plaint, in equal shares. They further prayed that plaintiff No.3 be declared as owner in possession to the extent of 1/6th share and defendants be declared as owners in possession as 1/6th share each out of ½ share of the land, as detailed in para No.1-B of the plaint. Upon notice, the suit was contested by defendant No.1-respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as 'defendant No.1') alone. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- RSA No. 2814 of 2010 (O&M) 3 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 5. Whether the suit is collusive between the plaintiffs and defendant No.2? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the Court? OPD 7. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the trial Court, while considering that the alleged family settlement being an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence and does not confer any title upon the parties, dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs also met the same fate. The crucial question, to be determined in the present case, is regarding family settlement dated 23.03.2001, Ex.PA. It is settled principle of law that family settlement, if relates to any creation, relinquishment or transfer of any right, title or interest for the first time, in the property and is not in connection with the pre- existing rights conferred by way of any oral family settlement or otherwise, then it certainly requires registration. The document Ex.PA does not recognize any pre-existing rights, may be oral or documentary, but it confers rights on the parties for the first time. Consequently, same being unregistered document, is certainly inadmissible in evidence. The settlement deed Ex.PA manifests that the parties reached a family settlement to the effect they would be owners as per the terms as mentioned therein and that does not contemplate to arrive at a family settlement, as RSA No. 2814 of 2010 (O&M) 4 determined by them earlier. So, in view of the judgment in case Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and others, (1995) 5 SCC 709, the document Ex.PA, being inadmissible, cannot be taken into consideration for determining the rights of the parties, as per the said document. No appropriate evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to enable this Court to hold that the decree was against the facts. The admission made by father of the plaintiffs is binding inter se between the parties and their successors. No particulars of fraud, coercion or undue influence have been alleged or proved for getting the decree set aside. As such the decree dated 03.01.1994 is as good a decree as passed after contest between the parties. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (A.N.JINDAL) October 14, 2011 JUDGE ajp