R.S.A. No. 3014 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3014 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.9.2008 Chhotu Ram ...Appellant. Versus Smt. Bimla and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Chhotu Ram claiming himself to be legal heir of the original plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2008 affirming that of the trial court dated 10.1.2008 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Tare was the owner in possession of the land measuring 42 kanals 14 marlas being 1/4th share in the total land measuring 170 kanals 15 marlas comprised in khewat Nos. 59/52, 96/85, 137/124, 138/125, khata Nos. 116, 171, 220 and 221 and also had share in the well comprised in khewat No. 60/53, situated in the revenue estate of village Bakhtawarpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, fully detailed in para 1 of the plaint. It was pleaded R.S.A. No. 3014 of 2008 -2- that the defendants had threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land illegally and forcibly on the ground that they had become owners of the suit land by virtue of the civil court's decree dated 10.1.1992 allegedly suffered by him in favour of the defendants by filing civil suit No. 790 dated 16.12.1991. According to the plaintiff, who claimed himself to be an illiterate person, the said decree was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff because the same was procured by the defendants by playing a fraud upon him as he was taken to Sonipat in order to execute the lease deed in respect of the suit land but they got the impugned judgment and decree passed on the basis of alleged family settlement, which never took place. The plaintiff requested the defendants to admit his claim but they refused to do so and that gave rising to the filing of the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 10.1.1992 was null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the notice of the suit, the defendants filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had no right over the suit land as he had already transferred the same to the defendants vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.1992 in lieu of the services rendered by them to the plaintiff, who was unmarried and issueless. It was further pleaded that there was a family settlement and no force was ever used against the plaintiff so as to suffer the decree in question in their favour and, thus, the defendants had become owners thereof. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. R.S.A. No. 3014 of 2008 -3- From the evidence led by the parties on the issues framed, the trial court after observing that it was the plaintiff who appeared in the court, filed the written statement admitting the claim of the defendants and made on oath statement that he wanted to transfer the suit land in favour of his nephews (plaintiffs) returned a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the judgment and decree dated 10.1.1992 passed in civil suit was null and void and not binding on his rights. Further, the suit of the plaintiff was held to be barred by limitation. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff went in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that the decree dated 10.1.1992 allegedly suffered by Tare was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. He also submitted that the said decree being unregistered one, could not have conferred any right on a party for want of registration. The courts below on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence while deciding issue No.1 had concurrently come to the conclusion that there was no fraud as Tare himself appeared in the court and to a specific question put by the court as to why he had come to the court, he replied that he wanted to transfer his share in the land in favour of his nephews. However, as regard to the R.S.A. No. 3014 of 2008 -4- registration of the decree, the lower appellate court in para 20 of its judgment had noticed as under:- “Thus, in terms of above said family settlement arrived at between Tare (uncle) and Raj Singh and Sumer Singh (nephews) judgment and decree dated 10.1.1992 was passed in Civil Suit No. 790 of 1991 titled “Raj Singh and another Vs. Tare” in respect of transfer of suit land in favour of Raj Singh and Sumer Singh. Certified copies of judgment and decree Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 have been proved on record. In this view of the matter, it can be conveniently held that judgment and decree dated 10.1.1992 was passed in pursuant to family settlement as already arrived at between the parties. There was no document of family settlement in writing which could be registered under Section 17 (2) of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the consent decree was in the nature of memorandum of past events and it would not require registration in any case and to that effect reliance can be placed on rulings Ram Charan Dass Versus Girija Nandini Devi (supra), Kale and others Versus Deputy Director of Conslidation and others (supra); and Smt. Sunehri Devi Versus Pritam Singh and others (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Bachan Singh Versus Kartar Singh and others (2002-2) 131, PLR 512 (SC) has held that if the claim R.S.A. No. 3014 of 2008 -5- of the plaintiff was admitted by the defendant and on the basis of said admission, a decree was passed and if there was no fraud in passing the decree then the said decree was a good and valid decree and could not be ignored on the ground that the same was not registered. Keeping in view ratio decidendi of above said rulings, it is safe to conclude that in a given set of facts judgment and decree dated 10.1.1992 passed on the basis of admission and the fact that no fraud was played upon Tare, since deceased in passing the decree, thus, it is a good and valid decree and it cannot be ignored for want of registration. It is relevant to point out here that since plea of alleged fraud as propounded by plaintiff is not tenable, the fact that plaintiff was not in possession of suit land at the time of institution of suit and the fact that plaintiff Tare, since deceased had suffered decree dated 10.1.1992 favouring Raj Singh and Sumer Singh, thus, instant suit instituted after three years of passing of impugned decree cannot be said to be within limitation. In this view of the matter as plaintiff has failed to prove his claim, thus, learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.” In view of the above, no illegality or perversity could be found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below R.S.A. No. 3014 of 2008 -6- warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. In view of what has been stated above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. September 18, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE