GURDEV KAUR Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Twin questions of law, namely, whether a compromise or consent decree regarding immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or more, which is subject matter of the suit, would require registration or not; and whether such a decree can be reopened in a subsequent suit by going behind the decree, reopening all the facts even if it is proved that the decree was not obtained by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, that is, the grounds on which a contract can be avoided, arise in this appeal, which has been admitted to Division Bench for determination in view of the conflict of opinion between the single Bench decisions of this Court.

(2.) In order to appreciate the two legal points, the facts may be briefly stated; On 19th October, 1967, Bur Singh and Kapur Singh obtained a compromise decree against their brother Bur Singh for possession of 110 Kanals 14 Marlas of land. In the plaint filed by Bur Singh and Kapur Singh, it was pleaded that Bur Singh had gifted the land to them 10/12 years ago and a week before the filing of the suit illegally took back the possession; hence the suit for possession was filed. A written compromise deed was filed before the Court in which Bur Singh agreed that the land belonged to the plaintiffs and the suit be decreed.

(3.) Bur Singh died on 8-7-1982 and on 26th Aug. 1982 his two daughters Gurdev Kaur and Mehar Kaur filed a suit to avoid the compromise decree dt. 19-10-1967 on the plea that it was obtained by undue influence; their father had not made any gift as was pleaded in the earlier suit; and they were the next heirs to succeed to their father.