RAM PIARI Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed a suit for declaration that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had secured a collusive decree dated 13.10.1978 from defendant No. 1 by exercising undue influence affecting the rights of the plaintiff, who is daughter of defendant No. 1. The suit was contested. A reference to para 8 of the judgment of the Reference Court shows that the plaintiff has not pressed grounds 8(a), (c) and (d) of the plaint and pressed only the grounds mentioned in para 8(b) of the plaint that the decree was vitiated by undue influence exercised by defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Lakhi Ram -defendant No. 1 filed his own written statement disputing the plea. DW1 Balwant Singh, DW2 Umed Singh, Sarpanch and DW4 Balwant deposed that Lakhi Ram was of disposing mind and voluntarily gave instructions to Rao Ran Singh, Advocate to file written statement in a previous suit to admit the claim of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 that the suit property was given to them in family settlement. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was not able to prove undue influence as alleged. On appeal, the plaintiff -appellant raised a further question that the decree dated 13.10.1978, Ex. P -2 was void for want of registration. This plea was rejected in view of provisions of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Indian Registration Act. It was held that suit property was subject matter of the previous suit and a family settlement did not require registration. It was observed that the word "family" in the context of a family arrangement could not be understood in a narrow sense. Reference was made to decision of the Apex Court in Kale v. Deputy Director Consolidation ,

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had no preexisting right as there could be no family settlement, they being nephews of defendant No. 1 and not members of the family; family settlement was valid only if all the members of the family were parties and defendant No. 1 was also required to be a party; thus, the decree was to defeat the statutory provisions of Stamp and Registration Act. He relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Ors. , para 16, to submit that Section 17(2)(vi) of the Indian Registration Act is applicable in respect of pre -existing right only.

(3.) IN the present case, the plaintiff has not brought on record the pleadings of the previous suit. It has been held by the lower Appellate Court that the suit property was self - acquired property and defendant No, 1 had absolute right to transfer the same. It was not necessary that the plaintiff, who is daughter of defendant No. 1 should have been made a party to a family settlement. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were members of the larger family of defendant No. 1.