SUKHDEVI Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Sukhdevi, who is the real sister of deceased Lalu, has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2003, passed by the first appellate Court, whereby after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, suit of the plaintiff for declaration and possession has been dismissed.

(2.) IN the present case, the plaintiff has challenged the consent decree dated 22.4.1988 suffered by Lalu in favour of Hari Ram vide Civil Suit No. 155 of 1988, titled as Hari Ram v. Lalu. Hari Ram is the real nephew of deceased Lalu. It is pertinent to mention here that mother of Lalu and Ranjit (father of Hari Ram) was one and same lady. The plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid decree on the grounds that Hari Ram was having no pre -existing right in the land of Lalu; that there was no family settlement between Hari Ram and Lalu; that there was no occasion to enter into family settlement, as Hari Ram was not a member of Joint Hindu Family; and that subject matter of the impugned judgment and decree was the immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100/ -, therefore, the consent decree was required to be compulsorily registered. Hence, the impugned consent decree is said to be illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit while holding that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh v. : AIR1996SC196 , the aforesaid consent decree required registration because no alleged family settlement was proved and the same is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Suit of the plaintiff was also held to be within limitation.