RSA No. 428 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 428 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: July 30 , 2009 Chander Pal ...... Appellant Versus Pyare Lal and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Kunal Chhoker, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaring two decrees suffered by his father as illegal, null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or transfering the suit land. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the defendant No. 3 had any absolute right to part away with the property which is admittedly on ancestral property and, whereby the defendant No.3 is merely Karta/caretaker of the same? ii)Whether the judgment and decree on admission dt. 12.9.1998 RSA No. 428 of 2007(O&M) 2 Ex.P5 is binding on the appellant/plaintiff especially in light of the fact that the appellant was not even a party to the suit? iii)Whether the registration of the judgment and decree dt. 12.9.1998 (Ex.P5) was liable to be registered as per the law and its non registration thereof makes it invalid and unbinding? iv)Whether the defendant No.3 was empowered to admit to the claim of the defendant No.1 in suit No. 548 of 20.7.1998 decided vide order dt. 12.9.1998 (Ex.P5) especially in view of his admission qua non-existence of any family settlement between the parties hereto? v) Whether the impugned judgment and decree dt. 27.11.2006 is against the factual matrix of ht case as well as settled proposition of the law? Questions No. (i) and (iv) are similar. Learned lower Appellate Court has found that the respondents had filed suit on the basis that the property in dispute was ancestral coparcenary property and that the parties had entered into a family settlement in the year 1996. It was further found that only the share of the respondents in the ancestral property was involved in that suit. The father of the appellant appeared and admitted the claim. Even in this suit he has not denied that he had in fact appeared and voluntarily suffered decrees. Thus, it cannot beheld that he did not have the right to suffer a decree with regard to the respondents' shares. Question No. (ii) does not arise because admittedly the appellant is in possession of his share of that property. With regard to question No. (iii) the learned lower Appellate Court has rightly held that the respondents were claiming an RSA No. 428 of 2007(O&M) 3 antecedent right and a family settlement and thus it was not necessary that the decrees in their favour were to be registered. Question No (v) is an amalgam of all the questions and, in consonance with the view I have taken on the other four questions,the same is also to be decided against the appellant. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 30, 2009 sunita