R.S.A. No. 987 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 987 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.02.2009 Gian Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Khazan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 23.3.2006 and 31.1.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants seeking declaration that decree dated 4.8.1982 suffered by Fauja Singh in favour of Khazan Singh was null and void and not operative on the rightrs of the plaintiff/appellants. By way of consequential relief, the plaintiffs sought injunction, stands dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: - “1. Whether the civil Court decree dated 4.8.1982 passed in civil suit titled Khazan Singh Vs. R.S.A. No. 987 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Fauja Singh in civil suit No. 225/82 is liable to be declared as illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPP 3. Whether the Court is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 7. Relief.” The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding that the civil Court decree dated 4.8.1982 passed in civil suit titled Khazan Singh Vs. Fauja Singh was valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Issues Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 were not pressed. Keeping in view that the judgment and decree dated 4.8.1982 was challenged by the plaintiff/appellant only in the year 2000, the learned Courts held the same to be barred by limitation. The plea of the plaintiff/appellants that the suit was filed within three years of date of knowledge was disbelieved in view of the evidence on record showing that the plaintiff/appellants have been summoning panchayats to settle the matter with their father. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised the following substantial question of law: - “Whether the judgment and decree dated 4.8.1982 was null and void for want of registration and, R.S.A. No. 987 of 2008 (O&M) -3- therefore, not affecting their right?” In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that in the present case, by way of judgment and decree dated 4.8.1982, the rights were conferred in favour of Khazan Singh for the first time and, therefore, the decree was required to be registered, as in absence of registration, no right could be claimed by Khazan Singh on the basis of said decree. In support of contention, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Raghunandan and others Vs. Ali Hussain Sabir and others, 2008(3) RCR (Civil)699 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that if the compromise decree creates a right for the first time as contra-distinguished from recognition of right, registration thereof would be required, if the value of the property is Rs.100/- and upwards. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to hold that if a right is created or is extinguished by a compromise decree, it must compulsorily be registered. On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It may be noticed that the decree impugned was passed on the basis of settlement where pre- existing right of Khazan Singh was accepted and decree passed. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants would not be applicable as the rights were not created for the first time in the impugned judgment and decree nor any decree has been passed on the basis of compromise in a suit where certain rights are conferred or extinguished by the parties to attract the law laid down by the Hon'ble R.S.A. No. 987 of 2008 (O&M) -4- Supreme Court in K. Raghunandan and others Vs. Ali Hussain Sabir and others (supra). The substantial question of law, as framed, does not arise for consideration in this appeal as decree passed on basis of family settlement, recognising the interest does not require registration. No merit. Dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 18, 2009 R.S.