R.S.A. No. 2350 of 2003 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2350 of 2003
Date of decision: September 30, 2008
Ranbir and others
.. Appellants
v.
Indraj Singh and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 4 to 7.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiffs are in appeal before this Court against the judgment
and decree of the lower Appellate Court, whereby that of the trial Court were
reversed.
Briefly, the facts are that Narain Singh, Karey and Ramji Lal were
three brothers. Indraj Singh son of Ramji Lal during his life time filed a suit
against Karey. The claim in the suit was conceded by Karey on the basis of which
consent decree was passed on 5.5.1989 regarding the property owned by him. It is
this decree passed in favour of Indraj Singh son of Ramji Lal which was impugned
by Narain Singh, one of the brothers. The trial Court decreed the suit. However, in
appeal, the claim made by the appellants-plaintiffs was not found to be meritorious
and the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the property in
question was ancestral. Even if a consent decree had been passed in favour of
Indraj Singh , the same required registration. On that account, the judgment and
decree of the learned Court below cannot be given effect to as Indraj Singh had no
pre-existing right in the property.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the decree in question was passed by the Court on 5.5.1989 in the suit filed by
Indraj Singh was on the basis of a family settlement. In fact, Karey was issueless
and Indraj Singh used to serve him and it was for this reason that he wanted to
transfer his entire share of property in his favour. The property having been
transferred in his favour during the life time of Karey, the appellants cannot be
aggrieved of against the same. He relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme
R.S.A. No. 2350 of 2003 [2]
Court in Som Dev and others v. Rati Ram and another, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 303
to submit that if a decree is passed on the basis of family settlement, the same did
not require registration.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From a
perusal of the judgment of the learned Court below, it is evident that the entire
material placed on record by the parties has been considered threadbare with the
application of correct position of law. Karey during his life time had absolute right
to transfer his property in favour of any one. The decree has not been challenged
on the plea of fraud or misrepresentation. The clear stand of Indraj was that the
land was transferred in his favour in view of family settlement and in terms of the
judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Som Dev’s case (supra) in such a
situation, the same did not require any registration.
No substantial question of law arises.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
30.9.2008
mk