Regular Second Appeal No.750 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.750 of 2008 Date of Order: 04.08.2009 Roop Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Bikkar Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. D.K.Kaushal,Advocate for the appellants. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellants challenge the judgments and decrees dated 29.11.2006 and 11.10.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot and the Additional District Judge, Faridkot , dismissing their suit and their appeal, respectively. The plaintiff/appellants filed a suit claiming ownership to the estate of Uttar Singh on the basis of a family settlement dated 01.07.2000, the date on which the Uttar Singh passed away. In response to the averments in the plaint, the respondents denied the execution of any family settlement, and in the alternative alleged that even if there is a family settlement, it could not pass any valid title to the appellants for want of registration. The appellants filed a replication denying the averments in the written statement and reiterating those in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues and called upon the parties to lead evidence. “ 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent Regular Second Appeal No.750 of 2008 -2- injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Relief.” On the basis of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court held that the appellants had failed to prove the family settlement as they had failed to produce the original family settlement. The photostat copy of the alleged family settlement was rejected as inadmissible in evidence. On the merits of the family settlement, the trial court held that the appellants did not have any pre- existing right to the property and, therefore, it could only be transferred to them by a registered instrument. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellants submits that the family settlement Ex.P1 has been rejected because the appellants failed to produce the original. It is submitted that the photostat copy of the family settlement was led into evidence and exhibited as Ex.P1, without any objection from the respondent. The courts below were therefore obliged to place reliance upon the family settlement and consequently decree the suit, in terms thereof. Counsel for the appellant has framed the following questions of law:- " 1. Whether the findings of both the courts below are against law and legally and factually unsustainable as per ground of appeal given in para no.3 and also in the other paras? 2. Whether the family settlement between the parties Ex.P1 is admissible and be relied upon, if so, its effect?" Regular Second Appeal No.750 of 2008 -3- I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and the substantial questions of law. By way of first question of law, the appellants allege that the findings recorded by the courts below are legally and factually unsustainable as the photostat copy of a family settlement Ex.P1, led into evidence without any objection from the respondent should have been accepted. The second question of law is an appendage to the first question as the appellants urge that a photostat copy, is admissible in evidence and should, therefore, have been accepted by the courts below. Uttar Singh died on 01.07.2000. The appellants claim to have arrived at a family settlement with the respondent on 01.07.2000 itself. It is not denied that the appellants do not have any pre-existing right in the estate of Uttar Singh, deceased as Bikkar Singh, respondent being the real brother of the deceased is admittedly a preferential heir. This apart, even if Ex.P1 is accepted as a family settlement it would not pass valid title, for want of registration. It is a settled principle of law that where the document, itself, whether a family settlement or otherwise, confers upon or divests a party of proprietory rights, such a document would pass valid title only, if registered, in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act. The document Ex.P1, has been read over by counsel for the appellants. It clearly records the passing of title to the appellants and therefore required registration. It would be necessary to mention here that assigning an exhibit to a document does not absolve the propounder of the document, of his primary obligation to prove the document particularly where the document so propounded seeks to create or divest, title in immovable property. In the absence of the original family settlement and the dismissal of the application for secondary evidence, the courts below rightly declined to place reliance upon Ex.P1. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as the impugned Regular Second Appeal No.750 of 2008 -4- judgments and decrees do not suffer from any error and as the substantial question of law framed do not arise for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. August 04, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE