RSA No. 3995 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3995 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 30 , 2010 Balwinder Singh ...... Appellant Versus Major Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Manvinder Singh Sidhu, 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 concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents challenging the sale deed of half of a house measuring 6 Marlas in favour of the appellant. The ground taken by the plaintiff-respondents was that he had become half owner in the property by way of a consent decree dated 12.1.1988 and thus his brother had no right to sell the same to the appellant. Both the Courts having decreed the suit, the present appeal has been filed. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the collusive decree between the parties can be considered which has not been registered with the competent authority? RSA No. 3995 of 2008 2 b) Whether the sale deed executed by Bahadur Singh in favour of the appellant on dated 6.4.2000 is genuine or not? c) Whether the respondent is entitled to the decree of declaration and permanent injunction or not? d) Whether the respondent is entitled to possession by way of partition to the extent of half share or not? The only question which has been argued is question No. (a). Learned counsel has urged that the collusive decree dated 12.1.1988 not being registered it was not in the knowledge of the appellant. However, it is not disputed that when the appellant earlier purchased the half share from the third brother, in that sale deed there was mention of the decree dated 12.1.1988. That being so it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to argue that he is a bona fide purchaser without knowledge. Consequently question No. (a) has to be decided against the appellant. Once this question is decided against the appellant, questions No. (b), ( c ) and (d) do not arise. Resultantly this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 30, 2010 sunita