Ram Piari (D) thr. Lrs vs Sukhdevi (D) thr. Her Lrs

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the relevant records and the judgments of the courts below from which the present appeal arises.

Going by the finding of fact reiterated by the High Court while deciding the second appeal against the appellant(s) - that the mother (appellant) had no other pre-existing interest in the subject property, it necessarily follows that registration of the subject consent decree was imperative. The legal position in that regard is clearly expounded by this Court in Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major & Ors. - (1995) 5 SCC 709 and K. Raghunandan & Ors. Vs. Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors. - AIR 2008 SCC 2337.

Learned counsel for the appellant(s) would, however, rely on the observations in the judgment in Phool Patti & Anr. Vs. Ram Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. - (2015) 3 SCC 164 to contend that the subject land being part of the scheduled property in the previous suit which culminated with the consent decree, the registration of the stated consent decree was not necessary. This contention is completely misplaced. It is misreading of the dictum in paragraph 29 of the decision in Phool Patti (supra). As a matter of fact, Phool Patti (supra) takes notice of the distinction made between the property made subject matter of consent decree which is backed by pre-existing right of the parties and, on the other hand, which is not backed by pre-existing right. The legal position expounded in Bhoop Singh (supra) and K. Raghunanadan (supra) in fact has been re-stated in paragraph 29 of the decision in Phool Patti (supra).

In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was right in allowing the second appeal in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and also answering all other issues on the basis of evidence and material on record against the appellant(s).

Hence, this appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

All pending applications are also disposed of.