RAJINDER SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Courts below have given the consistent opinion to the effect that there was no family settlement between the deceased and the defendants. The Courts below have also held that the decree on which the defendants had relied upon was not in recognition of some pre-existing right. Both the Courts have held that the decree itself had created the rights for the first time. Therefore, both the Courts have held that the decree was required to be registered. Since the same was not registered, it could not be relied upon by the defendants. It has also been held by both the Courts that the decree in fact has been obtained fraudulently. Both the Courts have given the aforesaid opinion after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence to the effect that the thumb mark of the deceased seems to have been super-imposed. Both the Courts below have also upheld the will, dated 7-10-1988, which is alleged to have been executed by the deceased in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 6. The plaintiffs had examined the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe in the trial Court. Mr. Kapoor strenuously argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, 1996 (1) PLR 559, the decree was not required to be registered. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. A perusal of paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment shows that if the Court finds that the compromise decree is bona fide, and is not a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the law relating to registration, it would not require registration. It is however, further held that in the converse situation, it would require registration. It is further held that if the compromise decree were to create for the first time, right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100.00 or upwards in favour of any party to the suit the decree or order would require registration.

(2.) In the present case both the Courts below have concurrently held that there was no effective family settlement. Therefore it cannot be said that the decree did not create rights for the first time. I am, therefore, of the opinion that both the Courts have rightly held that the decree was required to be registered. The Courts have also held that the decree itself is fraudulent in nature. Therefore on this added ground the decree dated 15-10-1988 is non est in law. A fraudulent decree can neither create nor take away any rights.

(3.) Mr. Kapoor further relied upon the decisions of Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini Devi, AIR 1966 SC 323 and Bachan Singh v. Kartar Singh, 2002 (10) JT (SC) 64. I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgments do not lay down any law contrary to the law lay down in Bhoop Singh's case supra. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.