R.S.A. No. 812 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 812 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.2.2009 Gurinder Kaur @ Joginder Kaur & others .......... Appellants Versus Jangir Kaur & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 11.10.2001 and 28.11.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondent seeking declaration and permanent injunction stands decreed. The plaintiffs by way of suit had challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992 passed by the Court of Sh. S.K. Goyal, learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sunam titled as Jagsir Singh and others Vs. Bugha Singh. The mutation sanctioned in pursuance to the said decree was also challenged. The suit was contested by the defendants-appellant on plea that the judgment and decree was validly passed, and also that by way of registered Will the remaining land was also bequeathed in favour of the R.S.A. No. 812 of 2009 2 defendants-appellant. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence brought on record have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the Will dated 16.10.1995 executed in favour of Joginder Kaur defendant was not of free will of the executant. It was also held that the judgment and decree was also liable to be set aside. In order to reach to this conclusion the learned Courts below took note of the admission by the defendants-respondent that she used to supply poppy husk daily to Bugha Singh in morning and evening. The learned Courts therefore took judicial note of the fact that poppy husk being a narcotic, causes sleep and takes away a person to a sleeping situation, therefore, the learned Court held that in view of this it could not be said that decree or Will was of freewill. The learned Courts also held that the judgment and decree was liable to be set aside for want of registration as by way of the decree the title was passed in favour of the appellants-defendant for the first time, without there being any pre-existing right. The learned Court also held that as in the Will there was no mention of name of the daughters clearly suggested, that the Will was not of freewill but under influence of somebody else. The learned Courts also held that the suit was within limitation as the same was filed within the limitation prescribed from the date of knowledge. Mr. Arun Palli, learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the learned Courts below failed to notice that the R.S.A. No. 812 of 2009 3 suit was time barred as the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992 was challenged on 14.11.1998. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants was that after the decree Sh. Bugha Singh remained alive for sufficiently long time but did not chose to challenge the Will during his life time, therefore, the suit was hopefully barred by limitation. This plea cannot be accepted in view of the concurrent finding of fact that Bugha Singh was addicted to narcotics and was not in normal state of mind to challenge the decree and that plaintiff-respondent challenged the decree within three years of knowledge. The learned senior counsel for the appellants by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Singh Vs. Gurcharan Singh and others (2003-3) 119 contended that once it was proved on record that the property was self acquired property then the decree passed on the basis of family settlement did not need registration. The contention is that, the learned Courts below committed an error in law in holding the decree to be bad for want of registration. This stand of the learned senior counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Raghunandan & Ors. Vs. Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors. 2008(3) RCR (Civil)699 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that if the right is created or extinguished by the decree for first time it must be compulsorily registered. The right in the appellants/defendants first time created by the R.S.A. No. 812 of 2009 4 decree and as they did not have any pre-existing right, as admittedly, the property was self acquired property of Bugha Singh. The learned Courts below, therefore, were right in holding that the decree did not vest any right in the appellants defendant for want of registration and was liable to be set aside in view of finding recorded. The appeal, therefore, raises no substantial question of law. No merit. Dismissed in limine. 19.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE