RSA No.3850 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3850 of 2007 Date of Decision: 29-07-2009 Mool Chand Sharma ......Appellant Versus Phool Chand and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant No.1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration challenging the consent decree dated 21.10.1995 was decreed. One Udairam was the last male holder of a joint Hindu family property. He had three sons, namely, Phool Chand (plaintiff), Mool Chand defendant No.1 and Satyanarain, defendant No.2. On 21.10.1995, Udairam suffered a consent decree of the entire land in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Such decree was challenged by Phool Chand, another son of Udairam by filing the present suit, inter-alia, on the ground that such decree is the result of fraud and that such decree requires registration. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that such RSA No.3850 of 2007 (2) decree requires registration as it creates interest in the immovable property for the first time. In appeal against the said judgment and decree by the present appellant, the said finding was set aside holding that the decree based on a family settlement does not require registration, but since it is admitted that it is a joint Hindu family property, therefore, the plaintiff as a coparcener has a right, title and interest in the land by virtue of his birth in the joint Hindu family property and any arrangement entered upon by Karta in respect of the share of the coparceners is a fraud upon the plaintiff. On the said basis, the learned first Appellate Court held that Udairam had 1/4th share along with his three sons, who had equal shares with him in the joint Hindu family. Therefore, the decree dated 21.10.1995 would be binding qua the shares of Udairam only. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant is in second appeal claiming that by virtue of the decree he is entitled to the entire property and not ½ share of Udairam. It is the admitted case of the parties before the learned first Appellate Court as well as before this Court that the properties in the hands of Udairam was a joint Hindu family property. In view of the said fact, his three sons, Mool Chand, Phool Chand and Satyanarain, are the members of such joint family by birth. Applying the principle of notional partition, just before the death of last male holder, Udairam, Mool Chand, Phool Chand and Satnarain, will have 1/4th share in such joint property. Therefore, the decree suffered by Udairam in favour of his two sons will be valid and illegal qua his share in the joint Hindu family property. Such finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court does not warrant any interference as the same is based upon the correct application of the principle of law. RSA No.3850 of 2007 (3) Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded or that the findings recorded give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 29-07-2009 ds