RSA No.1282 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1282 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010. Pirthi Ram .……Appellant Versus Ram Kumar and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. A. K. Khunger, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Pirthi Ram having lost in both the Courts below, has come in second appeal. Appellant-Pirthi Ram filed suit against respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. Plaintiff-appellant is son of Banwari Lal son of Har Lal whereas defendants-respondents are son of Shankar Lal son of Har Lal . Thus Har Lal was common grandfather of the parties. The plaintiff in the suit challenged judgments and decrees dated 20.04.1991 passed in two civil suits No.225-1 of 1991 and 226- 1 of 1991 alleging that the same have been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Various other grounds were also pleaded to challenge the same. The plaintiff accordingly sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 43 kanals 4 marlas and the judgments and decrees dated 20.04.1991 passed in the aforesaid two suits are illegal, null and void. Permanent injunction was also claimed. RSA No.1282 of 2010 -2- Defendants controverted the plaint allegations and raised various preliminary objections as well. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2008 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. In order to prove alleged fraud in passing of judgments and decrees dated 20.04.1991, the plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box and has not led any other evidence. Self-serving statement of the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove the alleged fraud. On the other hand, his statement has been rebutted by the testimony of Inderjit defendant No.4 while appearing as DW-3. Moreover, judgments and decrees dated 20.04.1991 were passed on the basis of admission made by the present plaintiff (who was defendant in those suits) by way of written statement as well as by way of statement made in the Court. Mr. Des Raj Kamboj, Advocate DW-2 represented the appellant Pirthi Ram (defendant in the previous suits) in the said suits. He has stated that the written statement was prepared in the said suits at the instance of Pirthi Ram, who signed the same admitting it to be correct. This witness also stated that statement of Pirthi Ram was also recorded in the Court wherein he admitted the claim of plaintiffs of those suits. In view of this evidence, it has been rightly held by the Courts below that no fraud RSA No.1282 of 2010 -3- was played in passing of judgments and decrees dated 20.04.1991. Statement recorded in the Court carries some authenticity. If such statement is to be discarded on bald and oral statement of the maker of the statement, then no sanctity would be attached to the Court proceedings. The question of fraud in the passing of judgments and decrees dated 20.04.1991 does not arise, when the appellant herein made statement in the Court in the previous suits. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgments and decrees dated 20.04.1991 required compulsory registration. The contention cannot be accepted. As noticed hereinabove, Har Lal was common grandfather of the parties. Defendants are cousins of the plaintiff. Consequently, there could be a valid oral family settlement between the parties which did not require registration. Concept of family settlement is well recognised by catena of judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not a case between strangers. On the other hand, parties are closely related being descendants of common grandfather. Consequently, there could be valid oral family settlement between the parties which did not require compulsory registration. In addition to the aforesaid, the suit filed by plaintiff appellant is also hopelessly barred by limitation. Judgments and decrees dated 20.04.1991 have been challenged in the suit which was instituted on 30.08.1999 i.e more than 8 years after the passing of the judgments and decrees in the previous suits which are under challenge in the instant suit. Thus the suit is also barred by limitation and is liable to dismissal on this ground as well. RSA No.1282 of 2010 -4- There is concurrent finding by both the Courts below against the plaintiff-appellant. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not warrant interference in second appeal as the same is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 15.09.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE