Civil Revision No. 2152 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2152 of 2010 Date of decision : March 31, 2010 Chandroop and others ....Petitioners versus Smt. Assi and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 17.2.2010, Annexure P/4, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon. The petitioners are sons of Sultan son of Tuman whereas respondents are heirs of Mangat son of Tuman. Sultan and Mangat predecessors of the parties along with their sister Kalawati were holding the land measuring 723 kanals 13 marlas in equal shares. Vide decree dated 17.1.1970, petitioners/plaintiffs became owners of 5447/14473 share and their father Sultan retained 1809/14473 share with himself. Similarly, defendants no. 1 to 4 became owners of 5792/14473 share and their predecessor Mangat retained 1445/14473 share with himself. Kalawati Civil Revision No. 2152 of 2010 -2- ceased to have any right in the suit land. After death of Sultan his share was inherited by the plaintiffs whereas after death of Mangat his share was inherited by respondents/defendants. Plaintiffs and defendants no. 4 and 5 purchased some share in the said land. There were also some other transactions. The petitioners filed suit alleging that they were not liable to contribute 40 kanals 1 marla land towards 80 kanals 2 marlas which was declared surplus in the hands of Mangat alone and not in the hands of petitioner's predecessor Sultan. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, compromise dated 13.6.2003, Annexure P/2, was effected. Statements regarding compromise were recorded in the trial court and ultimately vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2003, the suit was decreed in terms of compromise. Petitioners filed application dated 8.11.2004, Annexure P/3, alleging that their thumb impressions/signatures on compromise were obtained by fraud. It was also alleged that the compromise/consequent decree required compulsory registration. The aforesaid application was opposed by the respondents. The trial court after framing issues and recording evidence vide impugned order dated 17.2.2010, Annexure P/4, dismissed the aforesaid application. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners were to get 40 kanals 1 marla land but they have been given Civil Revision No. 2152 of 2010 -3- 20 kanals and thus, compromise was obtained by fraud. The contention cannot be accepted because the compromise was in writing which wasalso signed by the petitioners' counsel. Statement was also recorded in the court. The suit was decided on the basis of the said compromise. If after arriving at written compromise and after making statement in court in the presence of the counsel, any party is allowed to resile from the compromise, then no sanctity would be left for the proceedings of the court and compromise in any case can be challenged by either party at subsequent stage. In the instant case, there is no cogent evidence to prove that any fraud was played upon the petitioners in effecting compromise, Annexure P/2. There is only self serving statement of Jagmal petitioner no. 2 to prove the alleged fraud. His self serving statement is not sufficient to prove the fraud. Mr. RK Jain, Advocate who was counsel for the petitioners in the suit has appeared as RW2 and has stated that aforesaid compromise was effected between the parties and statement of the parties was recorded. The petitioners have, thus, miserably failed to prove that any fraud was committed with them in effecting compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the compromise/consequent decree required compulsory registration because respondents had no antecedent title in the land. It was also contended that matter of compulsory registration of such a decree has been referred to a Larger Bench by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phool Patti and Anr. Versus Ram Singh (Dead) through Lrs. And Anr., 2009(3) Recent Apex Judgments 125. This contention also does not help the petitioners because admittedly, the respondents had also share in the land in question Civil Revision No. 2152 of 2010 -4- and the dispute was regarding the respective shares of the parties. If the said dispute was amicably settled, it cannot be said that there was any transfer of title by one party to the other. The very purpose of compromise was to settle the dispute regarding respective shares of the parties in the land in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that the compromise or decree in this case required compulsory registration. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The petitioners want to resile from the compromise out of sheer dishonesty. They cannot be permitted to do so. They moved application for setting aside compromise decree almost one year after the passing thereof without any justification. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 31, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'