Tej Singh and others vs Jagrup Singh and others

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—Gurbachan Singh was the owner of the land in dispute His son Ram Singh filed a suit against him and pleaded that in family settlement Gurbachan Singh had given whole of his land to him. In that suit a written compromise dated 27.2.1973 was put in and the suit was decreed on 24th April, 1973 wherein on the basis of the aforesaid written cympromise Ram Singh was declared owner. Gurbachan Singh died on 9th October, 1978. It is thereafter that on 21st February, 1981 Jagroop Singh and Smt. Seeto son and daughter of Gurbachan Singh filed a suit against the legal representatives of Ram Singh, as he had died by then, in which Deepo daughter of Gurbachan Singh was also impleaded as a Defendant, claiming that in the estate left by Gurbachan Singh, the Plaintiffs had half share and the remaining half share belonged to the legal representatives of Ram Singh and Smt. Deepo. The compromise decree dated 24th April, 1973 was challenged on the ground that it was collusive, without consideration and did not bind the Plaintiffs

The suit was contested by the legal representatives of Ram Singh and it was pleaded that the compromise decree created title in Ram Singh and thereafter in favour of his legal representatives.

The trial Court relied on Harpal v. Smt. Ram Piari 1981 P. L. J. 492, and came to the conclusion that the consent decree was binding on the Plaintiffs as Gurbachan Singh was absolute owner and was competent to transfer the same to Ram Singh under compromise decree. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

On Plaintiff''s appeal the lower appellate Court relied on a decision rendered by S. P Goyal, J in Ranbir Singh v. Shri Chand 1984 P. L. J. 562 which had been given in the meantime, and did not rely on the decision rendered by me in Harpal''s case (supra), which was relied upon by the trial Court. It went behind the compromise decree to find out if there was any family settlement between Gurbachan Singh and Ram Singh on the basis of evidence and came to the conclusion that no family settlement had been proved It further observed that the assertions made in the earlier plaint were wrong and since the decree was passed on wrong facts, it was declared not binding on the next heirs of Gurbachan Singh. It also came to the conclusion on the basis of Raghbir Singh''s case (supra) that the compromise decree was in the nature of an instrument of gift of immoveable property in favour of Ram Singh and since it was not registered it did not confer any title on Ram Singh. As a result the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. This is Defendants'' second appeal.

In RSA No. 2061 of 1987 Gurdev Kaur v. Mehar Singh R. S. A. No. 2061 of 1987 decided today, we, have held that a compromise or consent decree does not require registration even if it creates title in respect of immoveable property of Rs. 106/- or more. It has also been held that a compromise or consent decree can be got set aside on one of the grounds on which a contract can be set aside, namely if obtained by fraud, mis-representation or coercion with an additional ground in favour of the minors or persons of un-sound mind if they are able to prove that next friend or the guardian who acted on their behalf was negligent in conducting the proceedings. If none of these grounds is established, the Court in a subsequent suit would not be entitled to go behind the decree. Now we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of the aforesaid dictum.

In this case, we have no material to the effect that the decree was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or coercion and the case proceeded in two Courts below was merely on the basis whether the decree requires registration and whether in a subsequent suit, the Court can go behind the earlier decree on facts.

In view of our judgment in Gurdev Kaur''s case (supra), on the facts of the case, the lower appellate Court was not justified in going behind the decree and decree did not require registration. As a result the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial court are restored leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/- A.L. Bahri, J.