Joginder Singh vs Jawala Singh

Gokal Chand Mittal, J.—On 30th March, 1983, Jawala Singh suffered a consent decree in favour of Joginder Singh, his sister''s son in regard to 39 Bighas 11 Biswas of land. On 23rd May, 1983, mutation was sanctioned in favour of Joginder Singh in the presence of Jawala Singh. On 29th August, 1984, Jawala Singh filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession against Joginder Singh.

In the written statement Joginder Singh relied upon the consent decree, which was denied by Jawala Singh in the replication and he pleaded that if any such decree was there, it was the result of fraud and mis-representation.

Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, but held that the decree required registration and in the absence of registration it did not convey title in favour of Joginder Singh. They also came to the conclusion that the consent decree was based on the plea of family settlement and therefore, the very basis of the consent decree was missing. As a result, the suit was decreed. This is Defendants'' second appeal.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents fairly conceded that there was no material on record to show that the decree was obtained by fraud or mis-representation. We find that even the pleadings are vague in this behalf.

Once it is held that the decree was not obtained by fraud or mis-representation and was based on the voluntary act of Jawala Singh, as held by us in RSA No. 2061 of 1987 (Gurdev Kaur v Mehar Singh), decided on 28.7.1988, that the decree does not require registration, the consent decree conveyed title in favour of Joginder Singh and the same did not require registration. Thus the Courts below were not entitled to go behind the consent decree.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed and after setting aside the judgments and decrees of the two courts below, the suit is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.