Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant Singh Etc vs Mandu And Ors on 18 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038821
RSA No.2265 of 1990 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:038821
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2265 of 1990 (O&M)
Date of Order:18.03.2024
Balwant Singh (deceased) through LRs and others
.Appellants
Versus
Mandu (deceased) through LRs and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. M.S.Dalal, Advocate
for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiffs assail the correctness
of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court which in
turn has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
2. To understand the controversy involved in the present case, the
relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. Sh. Harnam was the common ancestor. He had two sons,
namely, Mandu and Lehri. Sh. Mandu was a sonless proprietor. Sh.
Kanwar Singh son of Sh. Dhara Singh son of Sh. Lehri filed suit claiming
that in a family settlement, Sh. Mandu has acknowledged him as owner of
the property which was at one point of time owned by Sh.Mandu. In the
aforesaid suit, Sh. Mandu filed admitting the written statement. Pursuant
thereto, the civil court passed decree on 02.03.1982.
4. The decree passed by the court acknowledging family
settlement does not require registration as it does not amount to transfer of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038821
RSA No.2265 of 1990 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:038821
the property. Reliance can be placed on the recent judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in Khushi Ram and others vs Nawal Singh and others 2021
(SCC online) SC 128.
5. Sh. Balwant Singh, Sh. Hukam Chand and Sh. Ratti Ram sons
of Sh. Lehri, filed the present suit for grant of decree of declaration and
possession on 02.09.1984. They claim that the property is ancestral and
therefore, Sh. Mandu had no right to alienate the property by consent decree.
6. The trial court decreed the suit, however, the First Appellate
Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
7. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book. along
with the scanned record of the courts below.
8. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
consent decree would not confer any right upon Sh. Kanwar Singh as it is
not registered. He submits that Sh. Kanwar Singh had no pre-existing right
in the property of Sh. Mandu.
9. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
10. Sh. Kanwar Singh is grandson of Sh. Lehri, who was brother of
Sh. Mandu. In other words, he was one of the family member. Moreover,
the plaintiffs have no pre-existing right in the property as Sh. Mandu was a
sonless proprietor. Additionally, the parties belong to 'Jat community' and
the suit property is located in Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak. In Sube Singh
and another vs. Kanhiya Singh and others, 1964(2) SCR, 899, the Supreme
Court has held that amongst the 'Jat community' belonging to district
Rohtak, the agricultural ancestral land can be alienated for consideration.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038821
RSA No.2265 of 1990 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:038821
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
12. Dismissed.
13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 18, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
3 of 3
