SURJIT SINGH Vs. UTTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for declaration has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THE land, in dispute, was admittedly in the name of Sampuran Singh, father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and the grand father of plaintiff No. 3 Sampuran Singh died in August, 1983. The plaintiffs filed the suit on the plea that the land in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Sampuran Singh who constituted a joint Hindu family with them and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 The property being coparcenary could not be transferred by Sampuran Singh in favour of defendant Surjit Singh by way of a consent decree dated April 20, 1984, which according to them, was collusive and did not bind their interests therein. Surjit Singh, defendant, contested the suit He denied that the suit land was coparcenary property or that his father was the karta of the joint family. On the contrary he pleaded that by agreement dated October 20, 1980, the property was partitioned by Sampuran Singh between himself and his sons and later on a suit was brought by him and his brothers against Sampuran Singh and he suffered a decree dated February 11, 1980 in their favour. It was also pleaded that the decree dated July 26, 1983, in respect of the land, is suit, was valid and was cot open to challenge. Both the Courts below found the property in dispute was not the coparcenary property, as alleged by the plaintiffs but Sampuran Singh was the sole proprietor thereof. However, the decree dated July 26, 1988 suffered by Sampuran Singh in favour of Surjit Singh, defendant, was held to be invalid as the same was not registered Reliance was placed by the trial Court in this behalf on Ranbir Singh v. Shri Chand, 1984 P. L J. 562 and Nachhittar Singh v. Jagir Kaur, A. I. R. 1986 Pb. 197. On that account, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed and the said decree was held to be invalid by both the Courts below.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that in a subsequent Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gurdev Kaur v. Mehar Singh,3 the eartier judgments of this Court in Ranbir Singh's case and Nachhittar Singh's case (supra) were overruled and it was held that a compromise or a consent decree does not require registration even if it creates title in respect of the immovable proof the value of Rs. 100/- or more; provided, it is the subject-matter of suit. It has been further held therein that for the first time, a [title can be created under a consent or a compromise decree.