DULI CHAND Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Duli Chand having been non-suited by both the courts below has filed this second appeal. Appellant-plaintiff filed suit against Raghbir Singh defendant/respondent no. 1, Banwari Lal defendant no. 2 (since deceased) and Rameshwari defendant no. 3/respondent no. 2. Banwari Lal was father of plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 3. He suffered consent decree dated 27.5.1994 in favour of defendant no. 1 regarding 7 kanals 3 marlas land being 1/8th share of 57 kanals 3 marlas land. The said consent decree has been challenged by the plaintiff in the suit alleging that there was no family settlement between the parties on the basis of which the aforesaid consent decree was suffered. Various other grounds were also pleaded to challenge the same.

(2.) DEFENDANTS defended the consent decree and pleaded that there was family settlement between the parties pursuant to which aforesaid consent decree was rightly suffered. It was pleaded that defendant no. 2 had three sisters who also had share in the land. According to family settlement, share of two sisters of defendant no. 2 was to be transferred equally between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 whereas share of third sister was to be transferred to the plaintiff and share of defendant no. 2 was to be transferred to defendant no. 1 so that both brothers i.e. plaintiff and defendant no. 1 got equal share in the land. Various other pleas were also raised. Grounds to challenge the consent decree as pleaded by the plaintiff were controverted.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that defendant no. 1 admitted that plaintiff was not present at the time of alleged family settlement and therefore, there could be no valid family settlement regarding the share of defendant no. 2-father. The contention, although apparently very attractive, is completely misconceived and devoid of merit. It has come in evidence that the plaintiff has got the land of the share of two sisters of his father whereas defendant no. 1 has got land of share of his father and share of one sister of the father. It is undisputed that both the plaintiff and defendant no.1 have got equal shares in the total land. This admitted factual position is sufficient to corroborate the version of the defendants regarding family settlement pursuant to which impugned consent decree was suffered. Here it is significant to notice that all the three defendants including father and sister of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 have stepped into witness box to corroborate the aforesaid family settlement.