Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.1-Iqbal Singh/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") had filed suit for 2 of 37 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097151 declaration to the effect that he was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land measuring 133 kanals 2 marlas comprised in Khewat No. no157, khasra No.1352(7-11), 1385(7-12), 2015(1-7), 2016(10-2), 2018(7-3), 2019/2(7-4), 2026/2(7-11), 2027 (8-0), 2028(5-3), 2029(9-16), 2030(8-0) khasra No.2031/2(7-11), 2041(8-0), 2042/2(4-16), Kittas 14, total 99 kanals 16 marlas vide mutation No.1326 and Khewat No.157 min, Khasra Nos.2038 (8-0), 2039(4-0), 2040 (4-0), 2046(8-0), 2047(8-0), 2019/1(0-8), 2026/1(0-9) 2031/1(0-9), kittas 8, measuring 33 kanals 6 marlas vide mutation No.1325, total land 133 K- 2 M situated in village Bakana Nos.93, Tehsil Thanesar vide jamabandi 1978-79. A further declaration was sought that the decree dated 13.11.1981 passed in Civil Suit No.538 of 1981 by the Court of Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Kurukshetra in favour of defendant No.2 (present appellant No.1) (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.2) with respect to a part of the suit land measuring 33 kanals 6 marlas was illegal, null and void. Consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the suit land etc. was also prayed and in the alternative it was prayed that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, then the plaintiff be put in possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that the entire suit land was owned and possessed by Sher Singh, (father of the plaintiff as well as father of defendants No.2 to 5 and husband of defendant No.1) and the said land was ancestral and Jaagir property in the hands of Sher Singh who had died in the year 1982. It was further pleaded that since it was Jaagir property and 3 of 37 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097151 ancestral one, thus, the same could not be alienated but Sher Singh in contravention of law transferred 33 kanals 6 marlas of the suit land vide a collusive decree dated 13.11.1981 in favour of defendant No.2. It was further averred that apart from the fact that the said decree was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, the same was against the provisions of law and was null and void, inoperative, ineffective and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

"xxx xxx
8. In the facts of that case, this Court held that the first suit cannot really be said to have been decreed on the basis of compromise, as the suit was decreed "in view of the written statement filed by the defendant admitting the claim of the plaintiff to be correct".

Further, the earlier decree was held to be collusive. Two reasons for holding that the earlier decree in the above said case required registration have been mentioned in paragraph 19 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-

10. The judgment of Gurdwara Sahib Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala has now been expressly overruled by a Three Judge Bench judgment in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others Vs. Manjit Kaur. This Court held in the above case in paragraph 62 that once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner.

xxx xxx

13. In view of the pronouncement of this Court by Three Judge Bench judgment in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others Vs. Manjit Kaur and Others, the very basis of the High Court for holding that compromise deed dated 04.10.1985 requires registration is knocked out. The present is not a case where there is any allegation that the decree dated 04.10.1985 is a collusive decree. The decree dated 33 of 37 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097151 04.10.1985 was in favour of the plaintiff of 7 biswa land, survey No.203 and for remaining land of survey No.203, it was held that it belonged to defendants.

40. Even the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gurmail Singh and others (Supra) relied upon on behalf of the appellants is also on completely different facts inasmuch as in the said case also, decree had been passed acknowledging the family settlement whereas in the present case, neither any family settlement has been proved nor it is shown that the consent / collusive decree dated 13.11.1981 was passed after any such family settlement had taken place. Thus, the said judgment is also distinguishable on facts and would not further the case of defendant No.2.