Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. RSA No.3915 of 2006 (O&M) Jal Singh and another ......Appellants Vs Bhajan Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the respondent No.5 in RSA No.3915 of 2006 and for respondent No.1 in RSA No.2788 of 2002. Ms. Deepa Jain, Advocate for Mr. Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.4 in RSA No.2788 of 2002.

On the basis of pleadings in the 1st suit which is subject of challenge in RSA No.2788 of 2002, the trial Court framed following issues:-

"1. Whether the decree in Civil Suit No.52/96 titled as "Jal Singh Vs. Bhajan etc." dated 12.2.1996 passed by the court of Shri N.K. Biriwal, the then Ld. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Nuh is null and void as alleged? OPP

3 of 20

2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession of the suit land? OPP

3. Relief."

In the 2nd suit, which is subject matter of RSA No.3915 of 2006, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration sought? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC? OPD

4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata and u/o 13 Rule 6 of CPC? OPD

(v) The ratio decidendi culled out in by Hon'ble 6 of 20 Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh and others (1995) 5 SCC 709 would not be applicable but the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, was erroneous as it has been held that it was for the first time acknowledgment of right and therefore, the decree in question required registration, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the judgments and decrees under challenge. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Vij, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff and Ms. Deepa Jain for Mr. Yash Dev Kaushik appearing for respondent No.4 in RSA No.2788 of 2002 raised common arguments that amongst Hindu family, there was presumption of jointness of the property, which continues to operate unless and until contrary is proved. In support of the aforementioned, laid reliance to ratio decidendi culled out in paragraphs 19, 21 and 25 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adiveppa and others Vs. Bhimappa and another (2017) 9 SCC 586 and Phool Patti and another Vs. Ram Singh (dead) through LRs and another (2015) 3 SCC 465 to contend that there was a conflict of opinion with regard to judgment rendered in Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh and others (1995) 5 SCC 709 and K. Raghunandan Vs. Ali Hussain Sabir (2008) 13 SCC 102. A three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Phool Patti's case (supra) held that there was no conflict of interest and decided the reference on the basis of statements made by the counsel. It was submitted that where a compromise decree is passed 7 of 20 in favour of the plaintiff comprising of property 'A' as well as self- acquired property 'B', the property 'A' in respect of which decree acknowledges a pre-existing right, do not require registration but with regard to self acquired property registration is required. The defendants had no pre-existing right. The decree created right for the first time and therefore, required registration under the Registration Act. The concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered unless and until there is gross illegality and perversity, which has not been pointed out in the present case, thus, urges this Court for confirming the finding under challenge.