LEHNA SINGH Vs. RULIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' appeal against a judgment and decree of Mr. K. S. Ghambir Subordinate judges 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, dated the 5th December, 1947, dismissing the plain-tiffs' suit.

(2.) THE following pedigree table will explain the relationship of the parties: chimna _______________________________|____________________________________ | | | | diwan Chand Amar Singh Fattu Nathu | | _____|____________________________ | | | | | | | rulia Jagata Kartara | | (deft.) (deft.) (deft.) | | | | _____________________________|_________ | | | | sadhu Sing Lehoa Sing | | (plft.) | _____________|_______________ | | | | lakhmi Chand Nasiba | (plff.) (plff.) | _____________________________________|_ | | babu Harnam Singh | (deft.)Mt. Koshalaya amar Singh died childless and plaintiffs claim that they own one-third share in the estate left by chimna. According to the revenue papers, which deal with a large number of Khewats the shares of the various branches of the sons of Chimna are not given in ancestral shares but they are different--more in the case of some and less in the casa of others. The allegation of the plaintiffs in the plaint was that the parties were owners of proprietary lands and occupancy tenancy rights to which they were entitled in ancestral shares, the property being still joint, and that in the name of each of the branches of the sons of Chimna the shares were not in accordance with ancestral shares because there was a family arrangement although they were entitled to equal shares. A dispute arose in regard to the shares and a Panchayat was convened who decided that the three remaining sons of Chimna, i. e. , Nathu, Fattu and Diwan Chand, would have one-third share each in the estate of Chimna. This was really a compromise at the instance of the Panchayat and the terms of this compromise were embodied in a document, Exhibit P. 1. In their defence the defendants raised several pleas, but the controversy between the parties in the Court below centred around Exhibit P. 1 the deed of compromise, the issues being: (1) Whether Diwan Chand deceased executed and completed the agreement Ex. P. 1? (2) Whether the agreement Ex. P. 1 was got v executed by fraud and is without consideration and hence cannot be acted upon? (3) Whether the agreement Ex. P. 1 is not admissible in evidence for want of registration? (4) Relief. The learned Judge found that Ex. P. 1 is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

(3.) COUNSEL for the plaintiffs in appeal submitted in the first instance that Exhibit P. 1 was not a document which required registration, and secondly even if it did, the plaintiffs would be entitled to show that as a matter of fact their share in the estate of Chimna is one-third and not as shown in the revenue records.