NIRMAL SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code'), challenging the view taken by the learned lower Appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated 2.2.1990. The view taken by the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Kartar Singh has been reversed. It has been held by the lower Appellate Court that suit of plaintiff-respondent deserves to be decreed by taking into consideration the compromise dated 15.2.1957, which was the basis of decree dated 15.2.1957 passed in Civil Suit No. 209 instituted on 8.5.1956. The lower Appellate Court also took the view that such a judgment and decree of the Court is covered by sub-clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The aforementioned judgment and decree (Ex.PW-3/1) dated 15.2.1957 and also the compromise deed (Exh.P-1) dated 15.2.1957 were not accepted by the trial Court on the ground that compromise (Exh. P-1) was not genuine and the judgment and decree (Exh.PW-3/1) required registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that Phula Singh was son of Ganda Singh. He was owner of the suit land fully described in the headnote of the plaint. On 18.4.1952, he mortgaged the land in favour of one Lachhman Singh son of Harnam Singh for consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The period of mortgage fixed between the parties was 18 years. The defendant-appellants are the predecessors-in-interest of aforementioned Lachhman Singh. On 25.4.1955, Phula Singh had also executed a sale-deed regarding the suit land and a Haveli existing over it, in favour of Lachhman Singh for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. However, two collaterals of Phula Singh filed Civil Suit No. 209 for declaration on 8.5.1956 to the effect that mortgage deed dated 18.4.1952 and sale-deed dated 25.4.1955 in favour of Lachman Singh could not adversely affect their reversionary rights. On 15.2.1957, a compromise (Exh.P-1) was entered into between different collaterals, which included plaintiff-respondent Kartar Singh regarding the suit land. As a consequence, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order of the trial Judge (Ex.PW-3/1) passed on 15.2.1957. According to terms of the compromise, one half share of the property was to go to Pritam Singh son of Buta Singh, Kartar Singh son of Chanan Singh (plaintiff-respondents) and the other half was given to Ganga Singh son of Labh Singh, Harnam Singh son of Lal Singh and Lachhman Singh son of Harnam Singh.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the suit by recording the finding that the plaintiff-respondent was not proved to be owner of the suit land. In support of all those findings, numerous reasons have been recorded in para 8 of the judgment which read as under :-