RSA No. 1047 of 2003 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1047 of 2003 Date of Decision: 23.7.2009 Surat Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Harnam Singh .....Respondent 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 P.K. Gupta, Advocate and Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri R.D. Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for permanent injunction, challenging the consent decree dated 27.5.1992, suffered by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 was dismissed. The plaintiffs are sons of brother of Deena, whereas the defendants are sons of another brother of Deena, namely, Mehar Chand. Deena died issueless. He suffered a consent decree, on the basis of alleged family settlement, in favour of sons of Mehar Chand on 27.5.1992, which decree was challenged by the plaintiff in the present suit. The ground of RSA No. 1047 of 2003 (2) challenge is that the decree in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 tantamount to gift, which is without consideration and, therefore, not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the land is ancestral, therefore, alienation by defendant No.1 by way of collusive decree is against the agricultural custom of District Gurgaon, to which the parties belong. The learned trial Court found that since Deena Ram has no male issue, therefore, the property ceased to be ancestral in his hand and, thus, Deena was competent to bequeath or transfer the property in the manner, he liked. Consequently, the consent decree suffered by Deena Ram was found to be legally valid. In appeal, the argument that the decree required registration as the same tantamount to create right in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 was negated on the ground that the decree granted was on the basis of an oral family settlement in respect of the suit land. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishun Deo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280; Shankar Sitaram Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakee, AIR 1954 SC 362 and Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal argued that if the property was self acquired property in the hands of Deena, then, the transfer by way of collusive decree creates rights in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 for the first time and, therefore, such decree would require registration. Reliance is placed upon Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 196. However, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the RSA No. 1047 of 2003 (3) present case as admittedly the beneficiaries of the consent decree, are the members of the family of Deena, being sons of his brother. In Kale's case (supra), it has been held that a family settlement can be arrived at even if a member of family may not have any right in the property and such family settlement will not require registration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 23.7.2009 ds