Gurmail Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Others Mohinder Singh and Others
Case Details
RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-4360-2001 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-17.09.2025 Date of Decision : 18.09.2025 Date of Decision : Gurmail Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Mohinder Singh and Others Mohinder Singh and Others ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate for the appellant. .Turka, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. G.K.Turka, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. G. Advocate for respondents No.5(i) and 5(ii) Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.5(i) and 5(ii) Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. -.- 1. defendant No.1 has preferred the present Regular Second Appellant-defendant No.1 has preferred the present Regular Second defendant No.1 has preferred the present Regular Second Appellant Appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 31.05.2000 and 01.08.2001 passed Appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 31.05.2000 and 01.08.2001 passed Appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 31.05.2000 and 01.08.2001 passed Appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 31.05.2000 and 01.08.2001 passed pellate Court, whereby the suit filed by by the learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by pellate Court, whereby the suit filed by by the learned trial Court and learned Ap plaintiff has been decreed. the respondent-plaintiff has been decreed. Brief facts 2. The plaintiffs and the defendants are real brothers and sisters, being The plaintiffs and the defendants are real brothers and sisters, being The plaintiffs and the defendants are real brothers and sisters, being The plaintiffs and the defendants are real brothers and sisters, being Singh). The suit concerns the sons and daughters of late Pritam Singh (son of Jeon Singh). The suit concerns the sons and daughters of late Pritam Singh (son of the sons and daughters of late Pritam Singh (son of agricultural land which, according to the plaintiffs, constitutes joint family co- agricultural land which, according to the plaintiffs, constitutes joint family co agricultural land which, according to the plaintiffs, constitutes joint family co agricultural land which, according to the plaintiffs, constitutes joint family co parcenary property of Pritam Singh and his legal heirs. T parcenary property of Pri he plaintiffs and tam Singh and his legal heirs. The plaintiffs and that defendants claim rights in the disputed property by birth. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants claim rights in the disputed property by birth. defendants claim rights in the disputed property by birth. 1992 passed by Shri the defendants obtained a judgment and decree dated 21.09.1992 passed by Shri the defendants obtained a judgment and decree dated the defendants obtained a judgment and decree dated Surinder Gupta (then Sub-Judge, First Class Surinder Gupta (then Sub ), which purported to Judge, First Class, Patiala), which purported to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -2- determine the share of Pritam Singh in the land in dispute. The plaintiffs contend determine the share of Pritam Singh in the land in dispute. The plaintiffs contend determine the share of Pritam Singh in the land in dispute. The plaintiffs contend determine the share of Pritam Singh in the land in dispute. The plaintiffs contend the decree of 21.9.1992 is illegal, being the product of fraud and that the decree of 21.9.1992 is illegal, being the product of fraud and the decree of 21.9.1992 is illegal, being the product of fraud and the decree of 21.9.1992 is illegal, being the product of fraud and misrepresentation, and that necessary parties i.e. misrepresentation, and that nece the sons of Pritam Singh were ssary parties i.e. the sons of Pritam Singh were deliberately concealed from the earlier proceeding. It is pleaded that the decree was deliberately concealed from the earlier proceeding. It is pleaded that the decree was deliberately concealed from the earlier proceeding. It is pleaded that the decree was deliberately concealed from the earlier proceeding. It is pleaded that the decree was obtained collusively and amounts to a paper transaction. F obtained collusively a urther, the plaintiffs amounts to a paper transaction. Further, the plaintiffs assert that the 1992 decree has not been registered though it created rights for the assert that the 1992 decree has not been registered though it created rights for the assert that the 1992 decree has not been registered though it created rights for the assert that the 1992 decree has not been registered though it created rights for the
Legal Reasoning
first time, and therefore is inoperative and ineffective as against their rights. first time, and therefore is inoperative and ineffective as against their rights. first time, and therefore is inoperative and ineffective as against their rights. 3. ritten statement, denied the maintainability The defendants, in their written statement, denied the maintainability ritten statement, denied the maintainability The defendants, in their w of the plaintiffs’ suit in the form brought and admitted certain relationships. The of the plaintiffs’ suit in the form brought and admitted certain relationships. The of the plaintiffs’ suit in the form brought and admitted certain relationships. The of the plaintiffs’ suit in the form brought and admitted certain relationships. The defendants asserted that the property specified in the plaint is not situated in the defendants asserted that the property specified in the plaint is not situated in the defendants asserted that the property specified in the plaint is not situated in the defendants asserted that the property specified in the plaint is not situated in the village Karampur @ Batta, Karampur @ Batta, as alleged (cont villages as alleged (contention was raised that villages and Batta are distinct revenue villages), that the land was never Karampur and Batta are distinct revenue villages), that the land was never and Batta are distinct revenue villages), that the land was never and Batta are distinct revenue villages), that the land was never ancestral or joint in the sense alleged by the plaintiffs, and that partition had ancestral or joint in the sense alleged by the plaintiffs, and that partition had ancestral or joint in the sense alleged by the plaintiffs, and that partition had ancestral or joint in the sense alleged by the plaintiffs, and that partition had land at village already taken place. According to the defendants, the agricultural land at village already taken place. According to the defendants, the agri already taken place. According to the defendants, the agri ur was given to the plaintiffs about 12– Karampur was given to the plaintiffs about 12 15 years earlier by the father and –15 years earlier by the father and the land at village Batta was given to defendant No.1. T the land at village Ba he respective parties have tta was given to defendant No.1. The respective parties have separate been cultivating their allotted lands since the time of partition and enjoy separate been cultivating their allotted lands since the time of partition and enjoy been cultivating their allotted lands since the time of partition and enjoy possession and cultivation. The defendants asserted that the decree of 21.9.1992 is possession and cultivation. The defendants asserted that the decree of 21.9.1992 is possession and cultivation. The defendants asserted that the decree of 21.9.1992 is possession and cultivation. The defendants asserted that the decree of 21.9.1992 is legal and valid and that the grounds urged by the plaintiffs to impeach that decree legal and valid and that the grounds urged by the plaintiffs to impeach that decree legal and valid and that the grounds urged by the plaintiffs to impeach that decree legal and valid and that the grounds urged by the plaintiffs to impeach that decree are without merit. are without merit. 4. 1.9.1992 is null, Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the decree dated 21.9.1992 is null, Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the decree dated 2 Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the decree dated 2 void, inoperative and ineffective and does not affect their rights; consequential void, inoperative and ineffective and does not affect their rights; consequential void, inoperative and ineffective and does not affect their rights; consequential void, inoperative and ineffective and does not affect their rights; consequential reliefs were also claimed. Defendants relied, inter alia, upon a family settlement / reliefs were also claimed. Defendants relied, inter alia, upon a family settlement / reliefs were also claimed. Defendants relied, inter alia, upon a family settlement / reliefs were also claimed. Defendants relied, inter alia, upon a family settlement / partition document dated 14.12.1989 (produced as partition document dated hat the (produced as Ex.DW-3/1) and urged that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -3- private settlement and long possession and cultivation gave them valid title and private settlement and long possession and cultivation gave them valid title and private settlement and long possession and cultivation gave them valid title and private settlement and long possession and cultivation gave them valid title and possession. 5. The trial court framed the issues enumerated below: The trial court fra med the issues enumerated below:- 1. Whether the decree dated 21.09.1992 passed is null and void? Whether the decree dated 21.09.1992 passed is null and void? Whether the decree dated 21.09.1992 passed is null and void? OPP OPP 1-A. entered into a family settlement dated A. Whether the parties have entered into a family settlement dated entered into a family settlement dated 14.12.1989? If so, its effect? OPP 14.12.1989? If so, its effect? OPP 1-B B. Whether the property in dispute is , ancestral and joint Whether the property in dispute is joint, ancestral and joint Hindu family property? OPP Hindu family property? OPP 2. entitled to the declaration as prayed for? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP. OPP. 3. Relief. 6. The parties have led their evidence. The parties have led their evidence. The parties have led their evidence. Findings of the trial court Findings of the trial court On Issue No.1- -A — Whether the parties have entered into a Family settlement Whether the parties have entered into a Family settlement dated 14.12.1989? (Ex. DW-3/1) dated 14.12.1989 7. The trial court examined Ex. DW The trial court examined y of the alleged DW-3/1 (the copy of the alleged e trial /family settlement) and the evidence adduced in its support. The trial /family settlement) and the evidence adduced in its support. Th partition deed/family settlement) and the evidence adduced in its support. Th Court recorded the 3/1 could not be accepted as a legal and ourt recorded the findings that Ex.DW-3/1 could not be accepted as a legal and 3/1 could not be accepted as a legal and valid proof of partition or family settlement. The instrument, in the opinion of the valid proof of partition or family settlement. The instrument, in the opinion of the valid proof of partition or family settlement. The instrument, in the opinion of the valid proof of partition or family settlement. The instrument, in the opinion of the court, did not constitute a proper memorandum court, did not c of any concluded transaction or memorandum of any concluded transaction or As per settled legal position, partition of agricultural partition between the parties. As per settled legal position, partition of agricultural As per settled legal position, partition of agricultural partition between the parties. land is generally proved by (a) registered documents which are given effect in the land is generally proved by (a) registered documents which are given effect in the land is generally proved by (a) registered documents which are given effect in the land is generally proved by (a) registered documents which are given effect in the tion and separation, or (b) by a family settlement which revenue records by mutation and separation, or (b) by a family settlement which tion and separation, or (b) by a family settlement which revenue records by muta has been implemented and accepted by the revenue authorities and given effect to has been implemented and accepted by the revenue authorities and given effect to has been implemented and accepted by the revenue authorities and given effect to has been implemented and accepted by the revenue authorities and given effect to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -4- in the revenue record, in accordance with the procedure under the Punjab land in the revenue record, in accordance with the procedure under the Punjab land in the revenue record, in accordance with the procedure under the Punjab land in the revenue record, in accordance with the procedure under the Punjab land Revenue Act (sections 111 121 and analogous provisions were adverted to by the (sections 111–121 and analogous provisions were adverted to by the 121 and analogous provisions were adverted to by the court). It is further observed that mere private arrangements not acted upon in court). It is further observed that mere private arrangements not acted upon in court). It is further observed that mere private arrangements not acted upon in court). It is further observed that mere private arrangements not acted upon in revenue records are insufficient to prove partition of agricultural land between revenue records are insufficient to prove partition of agricultural land between revenue records are insufficient to prove partition of agricultural land between revenue records are insufficient to prove partition of agricultural land between coparceners. Ex. not a registered document and there was no evidence Ex.DW-3/1 was not a registered document and there was no evidence not a registered document and there was no evidence that the document was produced before or accepted by the revenue authorities so as that the document was produced before or accepted by the revenue authorities so as that the document was produced before or accepted by the revenue authorities so as that the document was produced before or accepted by the revenue authorities so as to obtain mutation and give it effect in revenue record. No independent witness to obtain mutation and give it effect in revenue record. No independent witness to obtain mutation and give it effect in revenue record. No independent witness to obtain mutation and give it effect in revenue record. No independent witness e document in the presence of others. e document in the presence of othe was examined to prove the execution of the document in the presence of othe was examined to prove the execution of th The attesting witnesses witnesses to the instrument were not examined on the crucial point of to the instrument were not examined on the crucial point of In view of the and the circumstances of execution were left unproved. In view of the and the circumstances of execution were left unproved. execution and the circumstances of execution were left unproved. lacunae lacunae lacunae above, above, above, the the the defendants defendants defendants failed failed failed to to to prove prove prove the the the ution, execution, exec exec 3/1. Consequently, the registration/acceptance, or the legal efficacy of Ex. DW-3/1. Consequently, the registration/acceptance, or the legal efficacy of registration/acceptance, or the legal efficacy of court held that Ex. 3/1 could not be treated as sufficient evidence of partition Ex. DW-3/1 could not be treated as sufficient evidence of partition 3/1 could not be treated as sufficient evidence of partition The court thus answered Issue No.2 in the or family settlement between the parties. The court thus answered Issue No.2 in the The court thus answered Issue No.2 in the or family settlement between the parties. egative (i.e., the alleged family settlement was not proved and had no legal negative (i.e., the alleged family settlement was not proved and had no legal egative (i.e., the alleged family settlement was not proved and had no legal egative (i.e., the alleged family settlement was not proved and had no legal effect). On Issue No.1-B in dispute is joint, ancestral and joint -B — Whether the property in dispute is joint, ancestral and joint in dispute is joint, ancestral and joint Hindu family property? Hindu family property? 8. The trial he trial Court considered evidence on title, long possession, and ourt considered evidence on title, long possession, and antecedent history of the land. The plaintiffs bore the burden to establish that the antecedent history of the land. The plaintiffs bore the burden to establish that the antecedent history of the land. The plaintiffs bore the burden to establish that the antecedent history of the land. The plaintiffs bore the burden to establish that the property in dispute was ancestral and remained joint, and that no valid partition property in dispute was ancestral and remained joint, and that no valid partition property in dispute was ancestral and remained joint, and that no valid partition property in dispute was ancestral and remained joint, and that no valid partition The court had taken place which would deprive them of their co-parcenary rights. The court had taken place which would deprive them of their co had taken place which would deprive them of their co rved that the plaintiffs did not lead convincing or legal evidence to establish observed that the plaintiffs did not lead convincing or legal evidence to establish rved that the plaintiffs did not lead convincing or legal evidence to establish rved that the plaintiffs did not lead convincing or legal evidence to establish the character of the land as admittedly joint ancestral property in the requisite the character of the land as admittedly joint ancestral property in the requisite the character of the land as admittedly joint ancestral property in the requisite the character of the land as admittedly joint ancestral property in the requisite sense. Documents or oral testimony sufficient to establish that the property sense. Documents or oral testimony sufficient to establish that the property sense. Documents or oral testimony sufficient to establish that the property sense. Documents or oral testimony sufficient to establish that the property TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -5- remained unpartitioned and that the plaintiffs retained co remained unpartit parcenary rights were not ioned and that the plaintiffs retained co-parcenary rights were not placed before the court to the required standard. The evidence regarding placed before the court to the required standard. The evidence regarding placed before the court to the required standard. The evidence regarding placed before the court to the required standard. The evidence regarding identification of the plot(s), revenue entries, mutation history and other indicia of identification of the plot(s), revenue entries, mutation history and other indicia of identification of the plot(s), revenue entries, mutation history and other indicia of identification of the plot(s), revenue entries, mutation history and other indicia of jointness and continuity of title was not adequate. jointness and continuity of t For these reasons, the trial court itle was not adequate. For these reasons, the trial court recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the property in dispute recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the property in dispute recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the property in dispute recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the property in dispute parcenary property such as was, at the relevant time, an unpartitioned ancestral co-parcenary property such as was, at the relevant time, an unpartitioned ancestral co was, at the relevant time, an unpartitioned ancestral co would entitle them to the reliefs claimed on that basis. Issue No. would entitle them to the reli was therefore efs claimed on that basis. Issue No.1-B was therefore answered against the plaintiffs. answered against the plaintiffs. On Issue No.1 — dated 21.09.1992 is null, void? — Whether decree dated 21.09.1992 is null, void? 9. The plaintiffs alleged the decree dated 21.9.1992 The plaintiffs being a result of the decree dated 21.9.1992 being a result of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of necessary parties. fraud, misrepresentation and They also urged concealment of necessary parties. They also urged collusion and that the decree was a paper transaction which should not bind them. collusion and that the decree was a paper transaction which should not bind them. collusion and that the decree was a paper transaction which should not bind them. collusion and that the decree was a paper transaction which should not bind them. On the The trial court critically examined the evidence led on these allegations. On the The trial court critically examined the evidence led on these allegations. The trial court critically examined the evidence led on these allegations. ourt found that the plaintiffs failed to allegation of fraud and concealment, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to ourt found that the plaintiffs failed to allegation of fraud and concealment prove the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of necessary prove the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of necessary prove the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of necessary prove the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of necessary parties in the 1992 proceeding. No cogent evidence was placed on record to parties in the 1992 proceeding. No cogent evidence was placed on record to parties in the 1992 proceeding. No cogent evidence was placed on record to parties in the 1992 proceeding. No cogent evidence was placed on record to establish that the decree was tainted and obtained establish that the collusion to the and obtained by fraud or collusion to the extent that the decree should be set aside on that ground. In short, the specific extent that the decree should be set aside on that ground. In short, the specific extent that the decree should be set aside on that ground. In short, the specific extent that the decree should be set aside on that ground. In short, the specific complaints of fraud and concealment were not proved to the requisite standard. complaints of fraud and concealment were not proved to the requisite standard. complaints of fraud and concealment were not proved to the requisite standard. On the contention of non-registration of the 1992 decree, plaintiffs the contention of non contented that the registration of the 1992 decree, plaintiffs contented that the decree of 21.9.1992 created, for the first time, rights, title or interest in immovable decree of 21.9.1992 created, for the first time, rights, title or interest in immovable decree of 21.9.1992 created, for the first time, rights, title or interest in immovable decree of 21.9.1992 created, for the first time, rights, title or interest in immovable holder and, therefore, property (of value exceeding Rs.100) in favour of the decree-holder and, therefore, property (of value exceeding Rs.100) in favour of the decree property (of value exceeding Rs.100) in favour of the decree the decree was a compulsorily registrable document, the decree was a co d decree was not mpulsorily registrable document, since the said decree was not registered, it could not operate to create such right and was inoperative/ineffective registered, it could not operate to create such right and was inoperative/ineffective registered, it could not operate to create such right and was inoperative/ineffective registered, it could not operate to create such right and was inoperative/ineffective as against the plaintiffs. The trial court considered this question in the light of the as against the plaintiffs. The trial court considered this question in the light of the as against the plaintiffs. The trial court considered this question in the light of the as against the plaintiffs. The trial court considered this question in the light of the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -6- rest in immovable settled rule that a document which creates a right, title or interest in immovable settled rule that a document which creates a right, title or inte settled rule that a document which creates a right, title or inte registration renders property for the first time is compulsorily registrable and non-registration renders property for the first time is compulsorily registrable and non property for the first time is compulsorily registrable and non Applying this legal principle to the the document ineffective to create that right. Applying this legal principle to the Applying this legal principle to the the document ineffective to create that right. did create rights facts on record, the trial court held that the decree dated 21.9.1992 did create rights facts on record, the trial court held that the decree dated 21.9.1992 facts on record, the trial court held that the decree dated 21.9.1992 holder in respect of the land in dispute for the first time. As in favour of the decree-holder in respect of the land in dispute for the first time. As holder in respect of the land in dispute for the first time. As in favour of the decree the decree was not got registered, it ought not to have created any right, title or the decree was not got registered, it ought not to have created any right, title or the decree was not got registered, it ought not to have created any right, title or the decree was not got registered, it ought not to have created any right, title or interest in favour of the decree-holder vis-à- interest in favour of the decree The trial court, -vis the plaintiffs. The trial court, therefore, concluded that the decree of 21.9.1992 did not operate to cut off or bind therefore, concluded that the decree of 21.9.1992 did not operate to cut off or bind therefore, concluded that the decree of 21.9.1992 did not operate to cut off or bind therefore, concluded that the decree of 21.9.1992 did not operate to cut off or bind the rights of the plaintiffs. the rights of the plaintiffs. 10. Accordingly, although the trial C ourt did not find proof of fraud, it ccordingly, although the trial Court did not find proof of fraud, it ourt did not find proof of fraud, it endent ground of compulsory nevertheless held that on the separate and independent ground of compulsory nevertheless held that on the separate and indep nevertheless held that on the separate and indep registration the decree of 21.9.1992 was inoperative and ineffective as against the registration the decree of 21.9.1992 was inoperative and ineffective as against the registration the decree of 21.9.1992 was inoperative and ineffective as against the registration the decree of 21.9.1992 was inoperative and ineffective as against the plaintiffs. On Issue No.2 — — Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration entitled to declaration as prayed for? 11. The trial Court considered the cumulative effect o The trial f the findings on the ourt considered the cumulative effect of the findings on the previous issues and held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the family settlement previous issues and held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the family settlement previous issues and held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the family settlement previous issues and held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the family settlement or private partition relied upon by the defendants, and the defendants thus failed to or private partition relied upon by the defendants, and the defendants thus failed to or private partition relied upon by the defendants, and the defendants thus failed to or private partition relied upon by the defendants, and the defendants thus failed to The plaintiffs also prove partition and exclusive titles flowing from Ex. DW-3/1.The plaintiffs also prove partition and exclusive titles flowing from prove partition and exclusive titles flowing from failed to prove fraud in the passing of the 1992 decree, failed to prove fraud in the however, the plaintiffs passing of the 1992 decree, however, the plaintiffs successfully established that the decree of 21.09.1992 was not registered despite successfully established that the decree of 21.09.1992 was not registered despite successfully established that the decree of 21.09.1992 was not registered despite successfully established that the decree of 21.09.1992 was not registered despite creating rights for the first time and, therefore, could not have the effect of creating rights for the first time and, therefore, could not have the effect of creating rights for the first time and, therefore, could not have the effect of creating rights for the first time and, therefore, could not have the effect of findings the extinguishing or affecting the plaintiffs’ rights. On these combined findings the extinguishing or affecting the plaintiffs’ rights. On these combined extinguishing or affecting the plaintiffs’ rights. On these combined trial court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the primary relief claimed i.e trial court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the primary relief claimed trial court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the primary relief claimed i.e to have the decree dated 21.09.1992 declared inoperative / ineffective insofar as it have the decree dated 21.09.1992 declared inoperative / ineffective insofar as it have the decree dated 21.09.1992 declared inoperative / ineffective insofar as it have the decree dated 21.09.1992 declared inoperative / ineffective insofar as it dispute.In purported to affect the share of Pritam Singh in the agricultural land in dispute.In purported to affect the share of Pritam Singh in the agricultural land in purported to affect the share of Pritam Singh in the agricultural land in TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -7- consequence, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit, declared the judgment and consequence, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit, declared the judgment and consequence, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit, declared the judgment and consequence, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit, declared the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1992 to be ineffective and not binding on the plaintiffs with decree dated 21.09.1992 to be ineffective and not binding on the plaintiffs with decree dated 21.09.1992 to be ineffective and not binding on the plaintiffs with decree dated 21.09.1992 to be ineffective and not binding on the plaintiffs with respect to the share of late Pritam Singh in the land in dispute. respect to the share of late Pritam Singh in the land in dispute. respect to the share of late Pritam Singh in the land in dispute. 12. Conclusion by the trial court on by the trial court 1. 2. The suit was decreed.
Legal Reasoning
The judgment and decree dated 21.09.1992 passed by Shri The judgment and decree dated 21.09.1992 passed by Shri The judgment and decree dated 21.09.1992 passed by Shri Surinder Gupta was held to be inoperative and ineffective and not Surinder Gupta was held to be inoperative and ineffective and not Surinder Gupta was held to be inoperative and ineffective and not Surinder Gupta was held to be inoperative and ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the share of binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the share of binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the share of binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the share of n the agricultural land in dispute. Pritam Singh in the agricultural land in dispute. Pritam Singh i 3. 3/1 (family settlement / partition document dated Ex. DW-3/1 (family settlement / partition document dated 3/1 (family settlement / partition document dated 14.12.1989) stood unproved and could not be given effect. 14.12.1989) stood unproved and could not be given effect. 14.12.1989) stood unproved and could not be given effect. Findings of the First Appellate Court Findings of the First Appellate Court 13. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2000, Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.05.20 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.05.20 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.05.20 appellant Gurmail Singh preferred an appeal before the learned defendant-appellant Gurmail Singh preferred an appeal before the learned appellant Gurmail Singh preferred an appeal before the learned appellant Gurmail Singh preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, wherein defendant No.2 Shamsher Singh was Additional District Judge, Patiala, wherein defendant No.2 Shamsher Singh was Additional District Judge, Patiala, wherein defendant No.2 Shamsher Singh was Additional District Judge, Patiala, wherein defendant No.2 Shamsher Singh was impleaded as proforma respondent. The lower appellate court, after hearing the impleaded as proforma respondent. The lower appellate court, after hearing the impleaded as proforma respondent. The lower appellate court, after hearing the impleaded as proforma respondent. The lower appellate court, after hearing the s, observed that except the contention relating to whether the counsel for the parties, observed that except the contention relating to whether the s, observed that except the contention relating to whether the counsel for the partie decree dated 21.09.1992 required compulsory registration or not, no other decree dated 21.09.1992 required compulsory registration or not, no other decree dated 21.09.1992 required compulsory registration or not, no other decree dated 21.09.1992 required compulsory registration or not, no other argument was urged before it. argument was urged before it. 14. noticed the settled position of law that a The Lower Appellate Court noticed the settled position of law that a noticed the settled position of law that a The existing right of the parties does not require registration, decree recognizing a pre-existing right of the parties does not require registration, existing right of the parties does not require registration, decree recogniz whereas a decree which creates rights in immovable property for the first time is whereas a decree which creates rights in immovable property for the first time is whereas a decree which creates rights in immovable property for the first time is whereas a decree which creates rights in immovable property for the first time is . It was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. It was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act the plaintiffs had pleaded that the property in the hands of further noticed that the plaintiffs had pleaded that the property in the hands of the plaintiffs had pleaded that the property in the hands of further noticed that parcenary and ancestral property, whereas the appellant- Pritam Singh was co-parcenary and ancestral property, whereas the appellant parcenary and ancestral property, whereas the appellant Pritam Singh was co TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -8- defendant had denied this position. The appellate court reasoned that once the defendant had denied this position. The appellate court reasoned that once the defendant had denied this position. The appellate court reasoned that once the defendant had denied this position. The appellate court reasoned that once the parcenary character of the property appellant himself had denied the ancestral/co-parcenary character of the property parcenary character of the property appellant himself had denied the ancestr in his written statement, he could not subsequently be heard to contend that he had in his written statement, he could not subsequently be heard to contend that he had in his written statement, he could not subsequently be heard to contend that he had in his written statement, he could not subsequently be heard to contend that he had existing right therein. The admission made in the written statement had a pre-existing right therein. The admission made in the written statement had existing right therein. The admission made in the written statement had existing right therein. The admission made in the written statement had appellate court concluded neither been withdrawn nor explained. Therefore, the appellate court concluded neither been withdrawn nor explained. Therefore, the neither been withdrawn nor explained. Therefore, the parcenary property in the hands of Pritam Singh and that the property was not co-parcenary property in the hands of Pritam Singh and parcenary property in the hands of Pritam Singh and that the property was not co existing right. It was thus held consequently, the appellant did not have any pre-existing right. It was thus held consequently, the appellant did not have any pre consequently, the appellant did not have any pre vour of the that the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1992 created rights in favour of the that the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1992 created rights in fa that the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1992 created rights in fa appellant for the first time, and being unregistered, the same was inoperative and appellant for the first time, and being unregistered, the same was inoperative and appellant for the first time, and being unregistered, the same was inoperative and appellant for the first time, and being unregistered, the same was inoperative and ineffective. 15. further observed that even assuming that The Lower Appellate Court further observed that even assuming that further observed that even assuming that The parcenary property, the appellant could not claim exclusive parcenary property, the appellant could not claim exclus the property was co-parcenary property, the appellant could not claim exclus the property was co sharer, ownership over a particular parcel of the land of Pritam Singh, as every co-sharer, ownership over a particular parcel of the land of Pritam Singh, as every co ownership over a particular parcel of the land of Pritam Singh, as every co parcenary including Pritam Singh, would have a right in every inch of the co-parcenary including Pritam Singh, would have a right in every inch of the co including Pritam Singh, would have a right in every inch of the co property, and none could claim an exclusive right to a defined portion unless property, and none could claim an exclusive right to a defined portion unless property, and none could claim an exclusive right to a defined portion unless property, and none could claim an exclusive right to a defined portion unless duly effected. partition was duly effected. 16. also considered the plea of the family settlement The Appellate Court also considered the plea of the family settlement also considered the plea of the family settlement The set up by the appellant. It was noted that in the written statement the appellant had set up by the appellant. It was noted that in the written statement the appellant had set up by the appellant. It was noted that in the written statement the appellant had set up by the appellant. It was noted that in the written statement the appellant had pleaded an oral family settlement, under which the land at village Batta was pleaded an oral family settlement, under which the land at village Batta was pleaded an oral family settlement, under which the land at village Batta was pleaded an oral family settlement, under which the land at village Batta was legedly allotted to him, whereas in evidence reliance was placed on a written allegedly allotted to him, whereas in evidence reliance was placed on a written legedly allotted to him, whereas in evidence reliance was placed on a written legedly allotted to him, whereas in evidence reliance was placed on a written 3/1). However, the trial court record showed that only a family settlement (Ex. DW-3/1). However, the trial court record showed that only a 3/1). However, the trial court record showed that only a family settlement ( photocopy of Ex. 3/1 had been tendered in evidence without leave to lead Ex. DW-3/1 had been tendered in evidence without leave to lead 3/1 had been tendered in evidence without leave to lead and the original document was never produced despite secondary evidence, and the original document was never produced despite and the original document was never produced despite secondary evidence, opportunity. Consequently, the appellate court held that the family settlement had opportunity. Consequently, the appellate court held that the family settlement had opportunity. Consequently, the appellate court held that the family settlement had opportunity. Consequently, the appellate court held that the family settlement had TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -9- not been proved on record. Thus, the appellant could derive no benefit from the not been proved on record. Thus, the appellant could derive no benefit from the not been proved on record. Thus, the appellant could derive no benefit from the not been proved on record. Thus, the appellant could derive no benefit from the same. 17. In these circumstances, the Lower Appellate Court In these circumstances, the found the appeal Lower Appellate Court found the appeal and decree devoid of merit and dismissed the same, thereby affirming the judgment and decree devoid of merit and dismissed the same, thereby affirming the judgment devoid of merit and dismissed the same, thereby affirming the judgment of the trial court. of the trial court. 18. by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, Feeling aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, Feeling aggrieved appellant-defendant No.1 preferred the pre sent Regular Second Appeal. defendant No.1 preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. 19. Upon notice, respondents appeared and contested the appeal. Upon notice, respondents appeared and contested the appeal. Upon notice, respondents appeared and contested the appeal. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 20. defendant has vehemently argued Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has vehemently argued Learned counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below have committed material irregularity and illegality by that both the courts below have committed material irregularity and illegality by that both the courts below have committed material irregularity and illegality by that both the courts below have committed material irregularity and illegality by 3/1, while ignoring the documentary evidence of family settlement, Ex.DW-3/1, while ignoring the documentary evidence of family settlement, ignoring the documentary evidence of family settlement, nd other allied issues. It is submitted that the recording findings on Issue No.1A and other allied issues. It is submitted that the nd other allied issues. It is submitted that the recording findings on Issue No.1A a signatures of the plaintiffs on Ex. DW-3/1 had been admitted by PW signatures of the plaintiffs on 2 Jarnail 3/1 had been admitted by PW-2 Jarnail Singh, one of the plaintiffs himself, and once such admission was on record, the Singh, one of the plaintiffs himself, and once such admission was on record, the Singh, one of the plaintiffs himself, and once such admission was on record, the Singh, one of the plaintiffs himself, and once such admission was on record, the the said document was fabricated or burden shifted upon the plaintiffs to prove that the said document was fabricated or the said document was fabricated or burden shifted upon the plaintiffs to prove that forged. It is further contended that the trial court itself had permitted the appellant forged. It is further contended that the trial court itself had permitted the appellant forged. It is further contended that the trial court itself had permitted the appellant forged. It is further contended that the trial court itself had permitted the appellant to prove the family settlement by way of secondary evidence vide order dated to prove the family settlement by way of secondary evidence vide order dated to prove the family settlement by way of secondary evidence vide order dated to prove the family settlement by way of secondary evidence vide order dated arnail Singh, and 06.08.1998 on the basis of the admission made by PW-2 Jarnail Singh, and 06.08.1998 on the basis of the admission made by PW 06.08.1998 on the basis of the admission made by PW thereafter the document was duly tendered and admitted in evidence without thereafter the document was duly tendered and admitted in evidence without thereafter the document was duly tendered and admitted in evidence without thereafter the document was duly tendered and admitted in evidence without objection. In such circumstances, both the courts below were not justified in objection. In such circumstances, both the courts below were not justified in objection. In such circumstances, both the courts below were not justified in objection. In such circumstances, both the courts below were not justified in discarding Ex. DW DW-3/1. 21. stions were It is further urged that even in cross-examination, suggestions were It is further urged that even in cross It is further urged that even in cross 3/1 was forged and fabricated and did not bear the put to the appellant that Ex. DW-3/1 was forged and fabricated and did not bear the 3/1 was forged and fabricated and did not bear the put to the appellant that signatures of the plaintiffs, which itself amounted to an implied admission that the signatures of the plaintiffs, which itself amounted to an implied admission that the signatures of the plaintiffs, which itself amounted to an implied admission that the signatures of the plaintiffs, which itself amounted to an implied admission that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -10- plaintiffs’ signatures were indeed appearing on the document. According to the plaintiffs’ signatures were indeed appearing on the document. According to plaintiffs’ signatures were indeed appearing on the document. According to plaintiffs’ signatures were indeed appearing on the document. According to DW- learned counsel, the entire approach of both the courts below in ignoring Ex. DW learned counsel, the entire approach of both the courts below in ignoring learned counsel, the entire approach of both the courts below in ignoring 3/1 is perverse and contrary to the record. It is also contended that the lower 3/1 is perverse and contrary to the record. It is also contended that the lower 3/1 is perverse and contrary to the record. It is also contended that the lower 3/1 is perverse and contrary to the record. It is also contended that the lower appellate court committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not appellate court committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not appellate court committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not appellate court committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not e amended written statement filed by the appellant and has thereby considering the amended written statement filed by the appellant and has thereby e amended written statement filed by the appellant and has thereby e amended written statement filed by the appellant and has thereby rendered findings against the pleadings and evidence available on record. rendered findings against the pleadings and evidence available on record. rendered findings against the pleadings and evidence available on record. 22. The appellant’s counsel has further argued that both the courts below The appellant’s counsel has further argued that both the courts below The appellant’s counsel has further argued that both the courts below The appellant’s counsel has further argued that both the courts below have misapplied the ratio of Bhup Singh vs. Ram Singh have misapplied the ratio of (1995) 5 SCC Singh vs. Ram Singh Major, (1995) 5 SCC , by holding that the family settlement and the decree required compulsory 709, by holding that the family settlement and the decree required compulsory , by holding that the family settlement and the decree required compulsory , by holding that the family settlement and the decree required compulsory registration. It is submitted that a memorandum of family arrangement does not fall registration. It is submitted that a memorandum of family arrangement does not fall registration. It is submitted that a memorandum of family arrangement does not fall registration. It is submitted that a memorandum of family arrangement does not fall ion Act and, therefore, does within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and, therefore, does within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registrat within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registrat not require registration. It is also urged that the decree dated 21.09.1992 was not not require registration. It is also urged that the decree dated 21.09.1992 was not not require registration. It is also urged that the decree dated 21.09.1992 was not not require registration. It is also urged that the decree dated 21.09.1992 was not the result of fraud or misrepresentation, and rather it was based on the the result of fraud or misrepresentation, and rather it was based on the the result of fraud or misrepresentation, and rather it was based on the the result of fraud or misrepresentation, and rather it was based on the memorandum of family settlement, Ex.DW-3/1, and Pritam Singh, being th memorandum of family settlement, e father 3/1, and Pritam Singh, being the father of the appellant, had rightly suffered the decree in favour of his son on that basis. It of the appellant, had rightly suffered the decree in favour of his son on that basis. It of the appellant, had rightly suffered the decree in favour of his son on that basis. It of the appellant, had rightly suffered the decree in favour of his son on that basis. It existing right is argued that the appellant, being the son of Pritam Singh, had a pre-existing right is argued that the appellant, being the son of Pritam Singh, had a pre is argued that the appellant, being the son of Pritam Singh, had a pre d not create in the joint family property, and therefore, the decree of 21.09.1992 did not create in the joint family property, and therefore, the decree of 21.09.1992 di in the joint family property, and therefore, the decree of 21.09.1992 di rights for the first time and did not require registration. The concurrent findings of rights for the first time and did not require registration. The concurrent findings of rights for the first time and did not require registration. The concurrent findings of rights for the first time and did not require registration. The concurrent findings of the courts below are, therefore, urged to be perverse, the result of misreading and the courts below are, therefore, urged to be perverse, the result of misreading and the courts below are, therefore, urged to be perverse, the result of misreading and the courts below are, therefore, urged to be perverse, the result of misreading and reading of evidence, and liable to be set aside. non-reading of evidence, and liable to be set aside. reading of evidence, and liable to be set aside. 23. een placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on een placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on Reliance has b the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ripudaman Singh vs. Tik the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in kka , wherein it has been held that where Maheshwar Chand, 2021 (3) RCR (Civil) 428, wherein it has been held that where , wherein it has been held that where Maheshwar Chand, 2021 (3) RCR (Civil) 428 the decree holder had a pre-existing right in the p the decree holder had a pre roperty, a compromise decree existing right in the property, a compromise decree does not require registration. does not require registration. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -11- Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents 24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has supported the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. It is argued supported the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. It is argued supported the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. It is argued supported the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. It is argued parcenary that the suit property was never proved to be ancestral or joint Hindu co-parcenary that the suit property was never proved to be ancestral or joint Hindu co that the suit property was never proved to be ancestral or joint Hindu co property and, therefore, the appellant had no pre property and, theref existing right therein. It is further ore, the appellant had no pre-existing right therein. It is further called family settlement was never proved, as only a contended that the so-called family settlement was never proved, as only a called family settlement was never proved, as only a contended that the so photocopy of the document was produced and the original was withheld. In such photocopy of the document was produced and the original was withheld. In such photocopy of the document was produced and the original was withheld. In such photocopy of the document was produced and the original was withheld. In such circumstances, the courts below rightly held that circumstances, the courts below rig 3/1 could not be relied htly held that Ex. DW-3/1 could not be relied upon. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate upon. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate upon. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate upon. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court reported as Smt. Ishawpati Bench of this Court reported as (since Ishawpati and others vs. Smt. Chhoto (since , wherein it has through her LRs and others, 2024 NCPHHC 133745, wherein it has through her LRs and others, 2024 NCPHHC 133745 deceased) through her LRs and others, 2024 NCPHHC 133745 been held that a consent decree which creates new rights, title or interest in been held that a consent decree which creates new rights, title or interest in been held that a consent decree which creates new rights, title or interest in been held that a consent decree which creates new rights, title or interest in immovable property for the first time requires registration and that an unregistered immovable property for the first time requires registration and that an unregistered immovable property for the first time requires registration and that an unregistered immovable property for the first time requires registration and that an unregistered ghts. It was further observed that bona fide purchasers decree cannot convey such rights. It was further observed that bona fide purchasers ghts. It was further observed that bona fide purchasers decree cannot convey such ri for value without notice are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property for value without notice are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property for value without notice are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property for value without notice are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. 25. Counsel for the respondents has further argued, on the same lines as Counsel for the respondents has further argued, on the same lines as Counsel for the respondents has further argued, on the same lines as Counsel for the respondents has further argued, on the same lines as t since the appellant himself denied the before the lower appellate court, that since the appellant himself denied the t since the appellant himself denied the before the lower appellate court, tha ancestral character of the property in his written statement, he cannot now be ancestral character of the property in his written statement, he cannot now be ancestral character of the property in his written statement, he cannot now be ancestral character of the property in his written statement, he cannot now be existing right in the permitted to turn around and contend that he had a pre-existing right in the permitted to turn around and contend that he had a pre permitted to turn around and contend that he had a pre y, the decree of property. Once the property is not ancestral or co-parcenary, the decree of property. Once the property is not ancestral or co property. Once the property is not ancestral or co 21.09.1992 created rights in favour of the appellant for the first time, and therefore, 21.09.1992 created rights in favour of the appellant for the first time, and therefore, 21.09.1992 created rights in favour of the appellant for the first time, and therefore, 21.09.1992 created rights in favour of the appellant for the first time, and therefore, compulsory registration was required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The compulsory registration was required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The compulsory registration was required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The compulsory registration was required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The on of the concurrent findings are sound, legal, and based on proper appreciation of the concurrent findings are sound, legal, and based on proper appreciati concurrent findings are sound, legal, and based on proper appreciati evidence on record. evidence on record. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -12- Findings 26. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not merit record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not merit record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not merit record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal does not merit counsel for the interference. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the interference. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned interference. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned appellant/defendant No.1 is that the family settlement dated 14.12.1989, produced /defendant No.1 is that the family settlement dated 14.12.1989, produced is that the family settlement dated 14.12.1989, produced 3/1, stood admitted in evidence and once the signatures of the plaintiffs as Ex. DW-3/1, stood admitted in evidence and once the signatures of the plaintiffs 3/1, stood admitted in evidence and once the signatures of the plaintiffs 3/1, stood admitted in evidence and once the signatures of the plaintiffs 2 Jarnail Singh, one of the plaintiffs himself, the thereon were admitted by PW-2 Jarnail Singh, one of the plaintiffs himself, the 2 Jarnail Singh, one of the plaintiffs himself, the thereon were admitted by PW burden shifted upon the plaintiffs to prove that the document was fabricated. burden shifted upon the plaintiffs to prove that the document was fabricated. burden shifted upon the plaintiffs to prove that the document was fabricated. burden shifted upon the plaintiffs to prove that the document was fabricated. eading of the trial court’s record shows that what was However, a careful reading of the trial court’s record shows that what was eading of the trial court’s record shows that what was However, a careful r was only a photocopy of the alleged produced by the appellant/defendant No.1 was only a photocopy of the alleged was only a photocopy of the alleged produced by the appellant family settlement, without production of the original. The permission to lead family settlement, without production of the original. The permission to lead family settlement, without production of the original. The permission to lead family settlement, without production of the original. The permission to lead availability of the secondary evidence was conditional upon proof of loss or non-availability of the secondary evidence was conditional upon proof secondary evidence was conditional upon proof /defendant original document, but no such foundation was laid by the appellant/defendant original document, but no such foundation was laid by the appellant original document, but no such foundation was laid by the appellant and no effort was made to summon the original. The attesting witnesses to No.1 and no effort was made to summon the original. The attesting witnesses to and no effort was made to summon the original. The attesting witnesses to and no effort was made to summon the original. The attesting witnesses to of its the document were also not examined, nor was there any evidence of its the document were also not examined, nor was there any evidence the document were also not examined, nor was there any evidence acceptance by the revenue authorities. In such circumstances, the courts below acceptance by the revenue authorities. In such circumstances, the courts below acceptance by the revenue authorities. In such circumstances, the courts below acceptance by the revenue authorities. In such circumstances, the courts below 3/1 could not be relied upon to prove partition were right in holding that Ex. DW-3/1 could not be relied upon to prove partition 3/1 could not be relied upon to prove partition were right in holding that or family settlement. Merely because a witness admitted that his signatures or family settlement. Merely because a witness admitted that his signatures or family settlement. Merely because a witness admitted that his signatures or family settlement. Merely because a witness admitted that his signatures the photocopy is not sufficient in law to prove due execution of a appeared on the photocopy is not sufficient in law to prove due execution of a the photocopy is not sufficient in law to prove due execution of a the photocopy is not sufficient in law to prove due execution of a family arrangement which affects immovable property. A family settlement to be family arrangement which affects immovable property. A family settlement to be family arrangement which affects immovable property. A family settlement to be family arrangement which affects immovable property. A family settlement to be acted upon must either be evidenced by a registered document where it creates or acted upon must either be evidenced by a registered document where it creates or acted upon must either be evidenced by a registered document where it creates or acted upon must either be evidenced by a registered document where it creates or ble property, or it must be duly acted upon and extinguishes rights in immovable property, or it must be duly acted upon and ble property, or it must be duly acted upon and extinguishes rights in immova accepted by revenue authorities in order to effectuate separation of holdings. As accepted by revenue authorities in order to effectuate separation of holdings. As accepted by revenue authorities in order to effectuate separation of holdings. As accepted by revenue authorities in order to effectuate separation of holdings. As none of these conditions are satisfied in the present case, I am of the considered none of these conditions are satisfied in the present case, I am of the considered none of these conditions are satisfied in the present case, I am of the considered none of these conditions are satisfied in the present case, I am of the considered TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -13- opinion that the family settlement has not been proved on record and th opinion that the family settlement has not e findings been proved on record and the findings ourts below in this regard cannot be termed perverse. of the Courts below in this regard cannot be termed perverse. ourts below in this regard cannot be termed perverse. 27. The second contention raised is that the property in the hands of The second contention raised is that the property in the hands of The second contention raised is that the property in the hands of The second contention raised is that the property in the hands of Pritam Singh was ancestral and co-parcenary and therefore the appellant Pritam Singh was ancestral and co /defendant parcenary and therefore the appellant/defendant No.1 had a pre- existing right by birth. This argument again cannot be accepted. -existing right by birth. This argument again cannot be accepted. existing right by birth. This argument again cannot be accepted. The respondents/ plaintiffs themselves had pleaded that the suit property was respondents/plaintiffs themselves had pleaded that the suit property was plaintiffs themselves had pleaded that the suit property was ancestral and co-parcenary, but the defendant ancestral and co in his written statement had defendant in his written statement had categorically denied this position. Once such a denial was made, the categorically denied this defendant position. Once such a denial was made, the defendant cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by taking a contrary stand in No.1 cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by taking a contrary stand in cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by taking a contrary stand in cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by taking a contrary stand in appeal that he had a pre-existing right. The Lower Appellate Court appeal that he had a pre has rightly Lower Appellate Court has rightly statement binds the party unless observed that an admission in the written statement binds the party unless observed that an admission in the written observed that an admission in the written withdrawn or explained, and since the defendant No.1 withdrawn or explained, and since the did not do so, he cannot defendant No.1 did not do so, he cannot claim the benefit of ancestral property at this stage. Even otherwise, the evidence claim the benefit of ancestral property at this stage. Even otherwise, the evidence claim the benefit of ancestral property at this stage. Even otherwise, the evidence claim the benefit of ancestral property at this stage. Even otherwise, the evidence ancestral character or adduced does not prove that the land in dispute retained its ancestral character or adduced does not prove that the land in dispute retained its adduced does not prove that the land in dispute retained its that no partition had taken place earlier. Further, even if the property were to be that no partition had taken place earlier. Further, even if the property were to be that no partition had taken place earlier. Further, even if the property were to be that no partition had taken place earlier. Further, even if the property were to be regarded as co-parcenary, the appellant parcenary, the appellant/defendant No.1 could not claim ownership /defendant No.1 could not claim ownership sharer would be of a defined portion of land situated in village Batta, since each co-sharer would be of a defined portion of land situated in village Batta, since each c of a defined portion of land situated in village Batta, since each c deemed to have a right in every inch of the property until partition. On this ground deemed to have a right in every inch of the property until partition. On this ground deemed to have a right in every inch of the property until partition. On this ground deemed to have a right in every inch of the property until partition. On this ground also, the defence fails. defence set up by the defendant No.1 fails. 28. Coming to the third aspect, namely whether the decree dated Coming to the third aspect, namely whether the decree dated Coming to the third aspect, namely whether the decree dated Coming to the third aspect, namely whether the decree dated istration, it has to be kept in mind that under 21.09.1992 required compulsory registration, it has to be kept in mind that under istration, it has to be kept in mind that under 21.09.1992 required compulsory reg existing Section 17 of the Registration Act, a decree which merely recognises pre-existing Section 17 of the Registration Act, a decree which merely recognises pre Section 17 of the Registration Act, a decree which merely recognises pre rights of parties does not require registration, but a decree which creates rights for rights of parties does not require registration, but a decree which creates rights for rights of parties does not require registration, but a decree which creates rights for rights of parties does not require registration, but a decree which creates rights for a value exceeding one hundred rupees the first time in immovable property of a value exceeding one hundred rupees a value exceeding one hundred rupees the first time in immovable property of has placed reliance on the judgment of requires registration. The defendant No.1 has placed reliance on the judgment of has placed reliance on the judgment of requires registration. The TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -14- the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ripudaman Singh the Hon’ble Supreme Court in to contend that Ripudaman Singh’s case (supra) to contend that since he had a pre-existing right in the property, the decree since he had a pre did not require existing right in the property, the decree did not require registration. However, as already observed, it is not registration. However, as already observed, that the property it is not established that the property existing right therein. On the parcenary in nature or that he had a pre-existing right therein. On the parcenary in nature or that he had a pre was co-parcenary in nature or that he had a pre contrary, by denying the ancestral character of the property in his pleading contrary, by denying the ancestral character of the contrary, by denying the ancestral character of the property in his pleadings, defendant No.1 foreclosed himself from raising the plea of pre defendant No.1 existing right. foreclosed himself from raising the plea of pre-existing right. created rights in favour of defendant Consequently, the decree dated 21.09.1992 created rights in favour of defendant created rights in favour of defendant Consequently, the decree dated 21.09.1992 for the first time, and therefore it was compulsorily registrable under Section No.1 for the first time, and therefore it was compulsorily registrable under Section for the first time, and therefore it was compulsorily registrable under Section for the first time, and therefore it was compulsorily registrable under Section Registration Act. 17 of the Registration Act. 29. , on the other hand, have rightly relied upon the The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have rightly relied upon the , on the other hand, have rightly relied upon the The judgment of this Court in Smt. Ishawpati’s case (supra) judgment of this Court in , wherein it was held that a Ishawpati’s case (supra), wherein it was held that a consent decree which creates new rights in immovable property for the first time consent decree which creates new rights in immovable property for the first time consent decree which creates new rights in immovable property for the first time consent decree which creates new rights in immovable property for the first time uires registration and an unregistered decree cannot convey such rights. The requires registration and an unregistered decree cannot convey such rights. The uires registration and an unregistered decree cannot convey such rights. The uires registration and an unregistered decree cannot convey such rights. The principle laid down in that case fully applies to the facts of the present case. The principle laid down in that case fully applies to the facts of the present case. The principle laid down in that case fully applies to the facts of the present case. The principle laid down in that case fully applies to the facts of the present case. The decree dated 21.09.1992 was never registered, and therefore it cannot confer any decree dated 21.09.1992 was never registered, and therefore it cannot confer any decree dated 21.09.1992 was never registered, and therefore it cannot confer any decree dated 21.09.1992 was never registered, and therefore it cannot confer any or interest upon the appellant in the suit property. right, title or interest upon the appellant in the suit property. or interest upon the appellant in the suit property. 30. unregistered The fourth question which then arises is the effect of the unregistered The fourth question which then arises is the effect of th The fourth question which then arises is the effect of th dated decree of Shri Surinder Gupta, the then Sub Judge, Ist Class, Patiala dated decree of Shri Surinder Gupta, the then Sub Judge, Ist Class, Patiala decree of Shri Surinder Gupta, the then Sub Judge, Ist Class, Patiala y held that the decree is 21.09.1992. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the decree is 21.09.1992. Both the courts below have concurrentl 21.09.1992. Both the courts below have concurrentl inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon the plaintiffs for want of registration. inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon the plaintiffs for want of registration. inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon the plaintiffs for want of registration. inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon the plaintiffs for want of registration. Once it is found that the decree created rights for the first time and was Once it is found that the decree created rights for the first time and was Once it is found that the decree created rights for the first time and was Once it is found that the decree created rights for the first time and was is only that of compulsorily registrable but remained unregistered, its legal effect is only that of compulsorily registrable but remained unregistered, its legal effect compulsorily registrable but remained unregistered, its legal effect an unenforceable instrument which does not alter the legal rights of the parties in an unenforceable instrument which does not alter the legal rights of the parties in an unenforceable instrument which does not alter the legal rights of the parties in an unenforceable instrument which does not alter the legal rights of the parties in the property. Such a decree cannot be acted upon to oust the plaintiffs from their the property. Such a decree cannot be acted upon to oust the plaintiffs from their the property. Such a decree cannot be acted upon to oust the plaintiffs from their the property. Such a decree cannot be acted upon to oust the plaintiffs from their urts below lawful share in the property. Therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below lawful share in the property. Therefore, the findings recorded by the co lawful share in the property. Therefore, the findings recorded by the co TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4360-2001 2001 (O&M) -15- nterference is on this aspect are well founded and in accordance with law. Interference is on this aspect are well founded and in accordance with law. on this aspect are well founded and in accordance with law. warranted only where the findings of the courts below are perverse, illegal or based warranted only where the findings of the courts below are perverse, illegal or based warranted only where the findings of the courts below are perverse, illegal or based warranted only where the findings of the courts below are perverse, illegal or based on misreading of evidence. In the present case, both the courts below have on misreading of evidence. In the present case, both the courts below have on misreading of evidence. In the present case, both the courts below have on misreading of evidence. In the present case, both the courts below have examined the pleadings and evidence and have given concurrent findings carefully examined the pleadings and evidence and have given concurrent findings examined the pleadings and evidence and have given concurrent findings examined the pleadings and evidence and have given concurrent findings that the family settlement was not proved, that the property was not shown to be that the family settlement was not proved, that the property was not shown to be that the family settlement was not proved, that the property was not shown to be that the family settlement was not proved, that the property was not shown to be co-parcenary so as to give parcenary so as to give defendant No.1 a pre existing right, and that the decree a pre-existing right, and that the decree quired compulsory registration and, not having been registered, dated 21.09.1992 required compulsory registration and, not having been registered, quired compulsory registration and, not having been registered, dated 21.09.1992 re was ineffective. These findings are based on sound appreciation of evidence and was ineffective. These findings are based on sound appreciation of evidence and was ineffective. These findings are based on sound appreciation of evidence and was ineffective. These findings are based on sound appreciation of evidence and correct application of legal principles. They cannot be said to be perverse or correct application of legal principles. They cannot be said to be perverse or correct application of legal principles. They cannot be said to be perverse or correct application of legal principles. They cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to record so as to justify interference by this Court contrary to record so as to justi by this Court. Conclusion 31. contentions In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the contentions In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the . The concurrent judgments and decrees raised by the appellant/defendant No.1. The concurrent judgments and decrees . The concurrent judgments and decrees raised by the appellant/defendant No.1 passed by the courts below are upheld. passed by the courts below are upheld. 32. 33. present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed Accordingly, the
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. September 18, 2025 , 2025 tripti MANDEEP PANNU) (MANDEEP PANNU JUDGE Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document