IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.497 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.11.2009 Smt.Chanderpati -----Appellant Vs. Mewa Ram and others ----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Mr. Neelaish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against decree of the courts below dismissing the suit for declaration challenging consent decree dated 13.3.1981 whereby she agreed to relinquish her rights in the inherited property in favour of defendants who are her brothers. 2. Case of the plaintiff was that being in fiduciary relationship, she agreed to the decree under undue influence and on account of misrepresentation. RSA No.497 of 1987 (O&M) 3. The defendants contested the suit by denying the allegation that the decree was suffered by the plaintiff voluntarily by making a statement before the court. 4. The trial court rejected the evidence of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court affirmed the reasons given by the trial court. It was noticed that there was well known tendency to opt out of succession by females to maintain good relations with males. It was also held that the decree being based on family settlement required no registration. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. He submits that following substantial questions of law arise:- “i) Whether the registration of consent decree is essential to create new right in favour of parties? ii) Whether the consent decree taken under fiduciary relationship is sustainable in the eyes of law? iii) Whether the consent decree can be challenged or not in fresh suit?” 2 RSA No.497 of 1987 (O&M) 6. As regards Question No.(i) matter is covered by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, against the appellant, inter-alia, in Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (1976) 3 SCC 119, paras 9 to 24 and thus, cannot be held to be substantial question of law. 7. As regards question No.(ii), mere existence of fiduciary relationship was not enough to hold that the consent decree was vitiated where finding of fact has been recorded by both the courts below that the plaintiff suffered the decree voluntarily which finding has not been shown to be perverse or without any evidence. 8. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. 9. The appeal is dismissed. November 10, 2009 (Adarsh Kumar Goel) ‘gs’ Judge 3