Gurmail Singh v. Mohinder Singh

IN T

Gurmail Singh Mohinder Singh

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Ap Appeal against t by the learned t the respondent-p Brief facts

2.

the sons and dau agricultural land parcenary prop defendants claim the defendants o Surinder Gupta

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

VERSUS h and Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Hardip Singh, Advocate for the s. G.K.Turka, Advocate for respo r. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate fo -.- ANNU,J. pellant-defendant No.1 has pre the judgments and decrees dated trial Court and learned Appellat plaintiff has been decreed. e plaintiffs and the defendants ughters of late Pritam Singh (son d which, according to the plai erty of Pritam Singh and his m rights in the disputed property obtained a judgment and decree a (then Sub-Judge, First Cla

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-4360-2001 (O&M) served on:-17.09.2025 ate of Decision : 18.09.2025

....Appellant

....Respondents DEEP PANNU e appellant. ondents No.1 to 4. or respondents No.5(i) and 5(ii) ferred the present Regular Seco d 31.05.2000 and 01.08.2001 pas te Court, whereby the suit filed are real brothers and sisters, be n of Jeon Singh). The suit conce intiffs, constitutes joint family s legal heirs. The plaintiffs by birth. The plaintiffs alleged t e dated 21.09.1992 passed by S ss, Patiala), which purported

ond ssed d by eing erns co-that Shri

determine the sh that the decre misrepresentatio deliberately con obtained collusi assert that the 1 first time, and th

3.

of the plaintiffs defendants asse village Karamp Karampur and ancestral or joi already taken p Karampur was g the land at villa been cultivating possession and legal and valid a are without mer

4.

Pla void, inoperativ reliefs were also partition docum

hare of Pritam Singh in the land ee of 21.9.1992 is illegal, b on, and that necessary parties i ncealed from the earlier proceedin ively and amounts to a paper 992 decree has not been registe herefore is inoperative and ineffe e defendants, in their written sta s' suit in the form brought and rted that the property specified pur @ Batta, as alleged (con d Batta are distinct revenue v int in the sense alleged by the lace. According to the defendan given to the plaintiffs about 12– age Batta was given to defendan g their allotted lands since the ti cultivation. The defendants asse and that the grounds urged by th it. aintiffs sought a declaration that ve and ineffective and does no o claimed. Defendants relied, in ment dated 14.12.1989 (produced

d in dispute. The plaintiffs cont being the product of fraud i.e. the sons of Pritam Singh w ng. It is pleaded that the decree w transaction. Further, the plaint ered though it created rights for ective as against their rights. atement, denied the maintainabi admitted certain relationships. T in the plaint is not situated in ntention was raised that villa villages), that the land was ne e plaintiffs, and that partition h nts, the agricultural land at vill –15 years earlier by the father nt No.1. The respective parties h ime of partition and enjoy separ erted that the decree of 21.9.1992 he plaintiffs to impeach that dec the decree dated 21.9.1992 is n t affect their rights; consequen nter alia, upon a family settleme d as Ex.DW-3/1) and urged that

end were was tiffs ility ages ever had age have rate 2 is cree null, ntial nt /

private settleme possession.

5.

1. OP 1-A

¶141-B Hin

2. OP

3.

6.

Findings of the On Issue No.1-dated 14.12.198

7.

partition deed/fa Court recorded valid proof of p court, did not c partition betwee land is generally revenue records has been implem

ent and long possession and cu e trial court framed the issues en Whether the decree dated 2 PP A. Whether the parties have ent

12.1989? If so, its effect? OPP B. Whether the property in di ndu family property? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitl PP. Relief. e parties have led their evidence e trial court -A — Whether the parties have 89? (Ex. DW-3/1) e trial court examined Ex. D amily settlement) and the eviden the findings that Ex.DW-3/1 co partition or family settlement. Th constitute a proper memorandum en the parties. As per settled leg y proved by (a) registered docum s by mutation and separation, or mented and accepted by the reve

ultivation gave them valid title numerated below:-

1.09.1992 passed is null and vo tered into a family settlement da ispute is joint, ancestral and jo led to the declaration as prayed f . e entered into a Family settlem DW-3/1 (the copy of the alle nce adduced in its support. The t ould not be accepted as a legal he instrument, in the opinion of m of any concluded transaction al position, partition of agricultu ments which are given effect in r (b) by a family settlement wh enue authorities and given effec

oid? ated oint for? ment ged trial n or ural hich

in the revenue Revenue Act (se court). It is fur revenue records coparceners. Ex that the docume to obtain mutat was examined t The attesting wi execution and th lacunae abov registration/acce court held that E or family settlem negative (i.e., t effect). On Issue No.1-B Hindu family pr

8.

antecedent histo property in disp had taken place observed that th the character of sense. Docume

record, in accordance with the ections 111–121 and analogous rther observed that mere privat s are insufficient to prove part x.DW-3/1 was not a registered do ent was produced before or accep tion and give it effect in revenu to prove the execution of the do itnesses to the instrument were n he circumstances of execution w ve, defendants failed eptance, or the legal efficacy o Ex. DW-3/1 could not be treated ment between the parties. The co the alleged family settlement w B — Whether the property in d roperty? e trial Court considered eviden ory of the land. The plaintiffs bo pute was ancestral and remaine which would deprive them of t he plaintiffs did not lead convin f the land as admittedly joint ents or oral testimony sufficie

e procedure under the Punjab l provisions were adverted to by te arrangements not acted upon tition of agricultural land betw ocument and there was no evide pted by the revenue authorities so ue record. No independent witn ocument in the presence of oth not examined on the crucial poin were left unproved. In view of d to prove executi of Ex. DW-3/1. Consequently, d as sufficient evidence of partit ourt thus answered Issue No.2 in was not proved and had no le dispute is joint, ancestral and jo nce on title, long possession, ore the burden to establish that d joint, and that no valid partit their co-parcenary rights. The co ncing or legal evidence to estab ancestral property in the requi ent to establish that the prope

n in ween nce o as ness ers. nt of ion, tion egal oint tion ourt lish isite

remained unpart placed before identification of jointness and co recorded a find was, at the relev would entitle th answered agains On Issue No.1 —

9.

fraud, misrepres collusion and th The trial court allegation of fra prove the alleg parties in the 1 establish that th extent that the complaints of fr the contention o decree of 21.9.1 property (of valu the decree was a registered, it cou as against the p

titioned and that the plaintiffs re the court to the required st f the plot(s), revenue entries, mu ontinuity of title was not adequat ding that the plaintiffs failed to vant time, an unpartitioned ance hem to the reliefs claimed on tha st the plaintiffs. — Whether decree dated 21.09.1 e plaintiffs alleged the decree sentation and concealment of n hat the decree was a paper transa critically examined the evidenc aud and concealment, the Court gations of fraud, misrepresenta 1992 proceeding. No cogent e he decree was tainted and obta decree should be set aside on raud and concealment were not p of non-registration of the 1992 d 1992 created, for the first time, r ue exceeding Rs.100) in favour a compulsorily registrable docum uld not operate to create such ri laintiffs. The trial court conside

etained co-parcenary rights were tandard. The evidence regard utation history and other indicia te. For these reasons, the trial co prove that the property in disp estral co-parcenary property such at basis. Issue No.1-B was theref 1992 is null, void? dated 21.9.1992 being a result necessary parties. They also ur action which should not bind the ce led on these allegations. On t found that the plaintiffs failed ation or suppression of necess evidence was placed on record ained by fraud or collusion to that ground. In short, the spec proved to the requisite standard. decree, plaintiffs contented that rights, title or interest in immova of the decree-holder and, therefo ment, since the said decree was ight and was inoperative/ineffect ered this question in the light of

not ding a of ourt pute h as fore t of ged em. d to sary d to cific On able ore, not

settled rule that property for the the document in facts on record, in favour of the the decree was interest in favo therefore, conclu the rights of the

10.

Acc nevertheless he registration the plaintiffs. On Issue No.2 —

11.

previous issues or private partiti prove partition failed to prove successfully est creating rights extinguishing o trial court held have the decree purported to aff

t a document which creates a ri e first time is compulsorily regis neffective to create that right. A the trial court held that the decre decree-holder in respect of the l not got registered, it ought not our of the decree-holder vis-à-uded that the decree of 21.9.199 plaintiffs. cordingly, although the trial Co eld that on the separate and in decree of 21.9.1992 was inoper — Whether plaintiff is entitled t e trial Court considered the cum and held that the plaintiffs faile ion relied upon by the defendant and exclusive titles flowing fro fraud in the passing of the 19 tablished that the decree of 21.0 for the first time and, therefo r affecting the plaintiffs' rights that the plaintiffs were entitled e dated 21.09.1992 declared ino fect the share of Pritam Singh in

ight, title or interest in immova strable and non-registration rend Applying this legal principle to ee dated 21.9.1992 did create rig land in dispute for the first time. t to have created any right, title vis the plaintiffs. The trial co 92 did not operate to cut off or b ourt did not find proof of fraud ndependent ground of compuls rative and ineffective as against to declaration as prayed for? mulative effect of the findings on ed to establish the family settlem ts, and the defendants thus failed om Ex. DW-3/1.The plaintiffs a 992 decree, however, the plaint

09.1992 was not registered desp ore, could not have the effect s. On these combined findings to the primary relief claimed i.e operative / ineffective insofar a n the agricultural land in dispute

able ders ghts As e or ourt, bind d, it sory ment d to also tiffs pite t of e to as it

consequence, th decree dated 21 respect to the sh

¶12Conclusio

1.

¶2Sur bin Prit

3.

¶14Findings of the

13.

Fee defendant-appel Additional Dist impleaded as p counsel for the p decree dated 2 argument was ur

14.

decree recogniz whereas a decre compulsorily re further noticed Pritam Singh w

he trial court decreed the plaintif

1.09.1992 to be ineffective and hare of late Pritam Singh in the la on by the trial court The suit was decreed. The judgment and decree rinder Gupta was held to be in nding upon the rights of the pl tam Singh in the agricultural lan Ex. DW-3/1 (family settle

12.1989) stood unproved and co e First Appellate Court eling aggrieved by the judgme llant Gurmail Singh preferred trict Judge, Patiala, wherein def roforma respondent. The lower parties, observed that except the

21.09.1992 required compulso rged before it. e Lower Appellate Court notice zing a pre-existing right of the p ee which creates rights in immo egistrable under Section 17 of t that the plaintiffs had pleaded was co-parcenary and ancestral

ffs' suit, declared the judgment not binding on the plaintiffs w and in dispute. dated 21.09.1992 passed by S noperative and ineffective and laintiffs in respect of the share nd in dispute. ement / partition document da ould not be given effect. ent and decree dated 31.05.20 d an appeal before the learn fendant No.2 Shamsher Singh w r appellate court, after hearing e contention relating to whether ory registration or not, no ot ed the settled position of law tha parties does not require registrati ovable property for the first tim the Registration Act, 1908. It w that the property in the hands l property, whereas the appella

with Shri not e of ated 000, ned was ther at a ion, e is was s of ant-

defendant had d appellant himse in his written sta a pre-existing r neither been wi that the property consequently, th that the judgme appellant for the ineffective.

15.

the property wa ownership over including Pritam property, and n partition was du

16.

set up by the ap pleaded an ora allegedly allotte family settlemen photocopy of E secondary evid opportunity. Co

denied this position. The appe elf had denied the ancestral/co-p atement, he could not subsequen right therein. The admission m ithdrawn nor explained. Theref y was not co-parcenary property he appellant did not have any p ent and decree dated 21.09.199 e first time, and being unregiste e Lower Appellate Court furthe as co-parcenary property, the ap a particular parcel of the land o m Singh, would have a right i none could claim an exclusive uly effected. e Appellate Court also considere ppellant. It was noted that in the l family settlement, under whi ed to him, whereas in evidence nt (Ex. DW-3/1). However, the t Ex. DW-3/1 had been tendered dence, and the original docum onsequently, the appellate court

llate court reasoned that once parcenary character of the prope ntly be heard to contend that he h made in the written statement h fore, the appellate court conclud y in the hands of Pritam Singh pre-existing right. It was thus h 92 created rights in favour of ered, the same was inoperative r observed that even assuming t ppellant could not claim exclus of Pritam Singh, as every co-sha in every inch of the co-parcen right to a defined portion unl ed the plea of the family settlem written statement the appellant h ich the land at village Batta w e reliance was placed on a writ trial court record showed that onl in evidence without leave to l ment was never produced desp held that the family settlement h

erty had had ded held that sive arer, nary less ment had was tten ly a lead pite

not been proved same.

17.

In t devoid of merit of the trial court

18.

Fee appellant-defend

19.

Up Submissions of

20.

Lea that both the co ignoring the d recording findin signatures of th Singh, one of th burden shifted u forged. It is furt to prove the fa

06.08.1998 on thereafter the d objection. In su discarding Ex. D

21.

It i put to the appell signatures of the

d on record. Thus, the appellan these circumstances, the Lower and dismissed the same, thereby t. eling aggrieved by the judgment dant No.1 preferred the present R on notice, respondents appeared f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant ourts below have committed ma documentary evidence of fami ngs on Issue No.1A and other al he plaintiffs on Ex. DW-3/1 ha he plaintiffs himself, and once upon the plaintiffs to prove that t ther contended that the trial cour amily settlement by way of sec the basis of the admission m document was duly tendered a uch circumstances, both the co DW-3/1. is further urged that even in cr lant that Ex. DW-3/1 was forged e plaintiffs, which itself amount

nt could derive no benefit from r Appellate Court found the app y affirming the judgment and dec ts and decrees of the Courts belo Regular Second Appeal. d and contested the appeal. lant. t-defendant has vehemently argu aterial irregularity and illegality ily settlement, Ex.DW-3/1, wh llied issues. It is submitted that ad been admitted by PW-2 Jarn such admission was on record, the said document was fabricated rt itself had permitted the appell condary evidence vide order da made by PW-2 Jarnail Singh, and admitted in evidence with ourts below were not justified ross-examination, suggestions w d and fabricated and did not bear ed to an implied admission that

peal cree ow, ued y by hile nail d or lant ated hout d in

plaintiffs' signa learned counsel, 3/1 is perverse appellate court considering the rendered finding

22.

have misapplied 709, by holding registration. It is within the misc not require regi the result of memorandum o of the appellant, is argued that th in the joint fami rights for the fir the courts below non-reading of e

23.

Rel the judgment o Maheshwar Ch the decree hold does not require

atures were indeed appearing on , the entire approach of both the and contrary to the record. It committed an error apparent amended written statement file gs against the pleadings and evid e appellant's counsel has further d the ratio of Bhup Singh vs. R g that the family settlement an s submitted that a memorandum chief of Section 17(2) of the Re stration. It is also urged that the fraud or misrepresentation, a f family settlement, Ex.DW-3/1, , had rightly suffered the decree he appellant, being the son of Pri ily property, and therefore, the d rst time and did not require regis w are, therefore, urged to be per evidence, and liable to be set asid liance has been placed by the le of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, 2021 (3) RCR (Civil) 428, der had a pre-existing right in t e registration.

n the document. According to e courts below in ignoring Ex. D t is also contended that the low on the face of the record by ed by the appellant and has ther dence available on record. r argued that both the courts bel Ram Singh Major, (1995) 5 S nd the decree required compuls of family arrangement does not egistration Act and, therefore, d e decree dated 21.09.1992 was and rather it was based on , and Pritam Singh, being the fat in favour of his son on that basis itam Singh, had a pre-existing ri decree of 21.09.1992 did not cre stration. The concurrent findings rverse, the result of misreading de. earned counsel for the appellant t in Ripudaman Singh vs. Tik wherein it has been held that wh the property, a compromise dec

DW-wer not eby low SCC sory fall does not ther s. It ight eate s of t on kka here

Submissions of

24.

On supported the co that the suit prop property and, th contended that photocopy of th circumstances, t upon. Counsel f Bench of this C deceased) throu been held that immovable prop decree cannot co for value withou Act.

25.

Cou before the low ancestral charac permitted to tu property. Once

21.09.1992 crea compulsory regi concurrent find evidence on reco

f learned counsel for the respon n the other hand, learned counse oncurrent findings recorded by perty was never proved to be an herefore, the appellant had no pre the so-called family settleme he document was produced and the courts below rightly held th for the respondents has relied u ourt reported as Smt. Ishawpati ugh her LRs and others, 2024 a consent decree which creat perty for the first time requires r onvey such rights. It was further ut notice are protected under Sec unsel for the respondents has fu wer appellate court, that since cter of the property in his wri urn around and contend that h the property is not ancestra ated rights in favour of the appell istration was required under Sect dings are sound, legal, and bas ord.

ndents-plaintiffs el for the respondents/plaintiffs both the courts below. It is argu ncestral or joint Hindu co-parcen e-existing right therein. It is furt ent was never proved, as only the original was withheld. In su hat Ex. DW-3/1 could not be rel upon the judgment of a coordin i and others vs. Smt. Chhoto (sin NCPHHC 133745, wherein it tes new rights, title or interest registration and that an unregiste r observed that bona fide purchas ction 41 of the Transfer of Prope urther argued, on the same lines the appellant himself denied itten statement, he cannot now he had a pre-existing right in al or co-parcenary, the decree lant for the first time, and therefo tion 17 of the Registration Act. T sed on proper appreciation of

has ued nary ther y a uch lied nate nce has t in ered sers erty s as w be of ore,

Findings

26.

Hav record of the c interference. Th appellant/defend as Ex. DW-3/1, thereon were ad burden shifted However, a ca produced by th family settleme secondary evide original docume No.1 and no eff the document acceptance by t were right in ho or family settle appeared on the family arrangem acted upon mus extinguishes rig accepted by rev none of these c

ving considered the rival subm case, this Court is of the opini he first and foremost contention r dant No.1 is that the family settl stood admitted in evidence and dmitted by PW-2 Jarnail Singh upon the plaintiffs to prove t areful reading of the trial cou he appellant/defendant No.1 was ent, without production of the ence was conditional upon proo ent, but no such foundation w ffort was made to summon the o were also not examined, nor the revenue authorities. In such olding that Ex. DW-3/1 could no ement. Merely because a witn e photocopy is not sufficient in ment which affects immovable p st either be evidenced by a regis ghts in immovable property, or venue authorities in order to eff onditions are satisfied in the pr

missions and having perused on that the appeal does not m raised by the learned counsel for lement dated 14.12.1989, produ once the signatures of the plaint h, one of the plaintiffs himself, that the document was fabricat urt's record shows that what w s only a photocopy of the alleg original. The permission to l of of loss or non-availability of was laid by the appellant/defend original. The attesting witnesses r was there any evidence of h circumstances, the courts bel ot be relied upon to prove partit ness admitted that his signatu n law to prove due execution o property. A family settlement to stered document where it creates r it must be duly acted upon fectuate separation of holdings. resent case, I am of the conside

merit uced tiffs ted. was ged ead dant s to its low tion ures of a o be s or As

opinion that the of the Courts be

27.

Pritam Singh wa No.1 had a pre-The respondent ancestral and c categorically de No.1 cannot be appeal that he observed that withdrawn or e claim the benef adduced does n that no partition regarded as co-p of a defined por deemed to have also, the defence

28.

Com

21.09.1992 requ Section 17 of th rights of parties the first time in requires registra

e family settlement has not been elow in this regard cannot be term e second contention raised is as ancestral and co-parcenary an -existing right by birth. This ar ts/plaintiffs themselves had pl co-parcenary, but the defenda enied this position. Once such permitted to approbate and repr had a pre-existing right. The L an admission in the written xplained, and since the defenda fit of ancestral property at this s ot prove that the land in dispute n had taken place earlier. Furthe parcenary, the appellant/defenda rtion of land situated in village B a right in every inch of the prop e set up by the defendant No.1 fa ming to the third aspect, na uired compulsory registration, it he Registration Act, a decree wh s does not require registration, bu n immovable property of a val ation. The defendant No.1 has p

n proved on record and the findi med perverse. that the property in the hands nd therefore the appellant/defend rgument again cannot be accept eaded that the suit property w ant in his written statement h a denial was made, the defend robate by taking a contrary stand Lower Appellate Court has righ statement binds the party unl ant No.1 did not do so, he can stage. Even otherwise, the evide e retained its ancestral character er, even if the property were to ant No.1 could not claim owners Batta, since each co-sharer would perty until partition. On this grou ails. amely whether the decree da t has to be kept in mind that un hich merely recognises pre-exist ut a decree which creates rights lue exceeding one hundred rup placed reliance on the judgment

ngs s of dant ted. was had dant d in htly less nnot nce r or o be ship d be und ated nder ting for pees

the Hon'ble Sup since he had a registration. Ho was co-parcena contrary, by de defendant No.1 Consequently, t No.1 for the firs 17 of the Regist

29.

judgment of this consent decree requires registra principle laid do decree dated 21 right, title or int

30.

decree of Shri

21.09.1992. Bo inoperative, inef Once it is fou compulsorily re an unenforceabl the property. Su lawful share in

preme Court in Ripudaman Sin a pre-existing right in the pro owever, as already observed, it i ary in nature or that he had a enying the ancestral character foreclosed himself from raisi the decree dated 21.09.1992 cre st time, and therefore it was com tration Act. e plaintiffs, on the other han s Court in Smt. Ishawpati's case which creates new rights in imm ation and an unregistered decre own in that case fully applies to

1.09.1992 was never registered, erest upon the appellant in the su e fourth question which then ari Surinder Gupta, the then Su oth the courts below have con ffective and not binding upon th und that the decree created ri egistrable but remained unregiste le instrument which does not alt uch a decree cannot be acted up the property. Therefore, the find

ngh's case (supra) to contend t perty, the decree did not requ is not established that the prope pre-existing right therein. On of the property in his pleadin ing the plea of pre-existing rig eated rights in favour of defend mpulsorily registrable under Sect nd, have rightly relied upon e (supra), wherein it was held th movable property for the first ti ee cannot convey such rights. T o the facts of the present case. T and therefore it cannot confer uit property. ises is the effect of the unregiste ub Judge, Ist Class, Patiala da ncurrently held that the decree he plaintiffs for want of registrati ights for the first time and w ered, its legal effect is only that ter the legal rights of the parties pon to oust the plaintiffs from th dings recorded by the courts bel

that uire erty ngs, ght. dant tion at a ime any ered ated e is ion. was t of s in heir

on this aspect warranted only w on misreading carefully examin that the family co-parcenary so dated 21.09.199 was ineffective. correct applicat contrary to recor Conclusion

31.

In v raised by the a passed by the co

32.

Acc

33.

Pen

September 18, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh

are well founded and in acco where the findings of the courts of evidence. In the present c ned the pleadings and evidence settlement was not proved, that o as to give defendant No.1 a pre 92 required compulsory registrati . These findings are based on s tion of legal principles. They rd so as to justify interference by view of the aforesaid discussion appellant/defendant No.1. The c ourts below are upheld. cordingly, the present Regular S nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

ordance with law. Interference below are perverse, illegal or ba case, both the courts below h and have given concurrent findi t the property was not shown to e-existing right, and that the dec ion and, not having been register ound appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse y this Court. n, I find no merit in the contenti concurrent judgments and decr Second Appeal is dismissed stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

e is ased have ngs o be cree red, e or ons