RANBIR SINGH Vs. SHRI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question involved in this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated February 8, 1980 is, as to whether the consent decree which has the effect of transferring the land in dispute, measuring 38 Kanals 7 Marlas without any registered deed, would conform a valid title?

(2.) Respondent Shri Chand filed this suit for a declaration that he is the owner in -possession and in the alternative, for a decree of possession of the said land and for setting aside the decree passed in suit No. 187 of 1976 decided by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Panipat, on March 30, 1976, on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. The trial Court upheld the plea of misrepresentation and also held that no valid title could pass under the decree, the same having been not registered. Consequently, the previous decree was set aside and a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge Karnal, reversed the finding of the trial Court on the question of misrepresentation but upheld the decree on the other ground vide judgment dated February 8, 1980. Still dissatisfied the defendant has come up in this second appeal.

(3.) Mr. C D Dewan, the learned Counsel for the appellant, sought to challenge the corrections of the view taken by the Courts below, in the first instance, on the ground that a consent decree operates as res judicata and is binding on the parties unless it is successfully challenged on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation. He also raised another contention which essentially depends upon the first plea that the objection of the absent of registered document to effect a valid transfer, having been not raised in the earlier suit could not be raised in the present suit and was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. Reliance for this contention was placed by the learned Counsel on Sailendra Narayan Dhanja Deo v/s. : [1956]1SCR72 ; Shankar Sitaram Sontakke and Anr. v/s. : [1955]1SCR99 ; State of U.P. v/s. : [1977]3SCR428 , Mansa Ram and Ors. v/s. Nathu and Ors., I.L.R. 1955 P&H 891; Gangaprashad and Ors. v/s. , and Laxmi Narain Gododia v/s. . Neither of the two contentions has any merit. In none of the authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel it was ruled that the consent decree operates by way of res judicata and all that was held is that it is as effective an estoppel between the parties as a judgment rendered by the Court in a contested matter.