Rajinder Singh v. Baldev Singh And Others
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajinder Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Baldev Singh (Now Deceased) Through LRs and Anr. ...Respondents
Reserved on: 18.03.2026
Pronounced on: 01.04.2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Lakshmeet Kaur, Advocate for respondent Nos.1(ii) and 1(iii).
Mr. Kshi3z Goel, Advocate for LRs of respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Ishmeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.4, 6 and 8.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Seema Rani, Advocate for respondents No.9 & 10.
**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The plain3ff has approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby his suit for possession of the suit land has been dismissed. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 21.11.1989, dismissed the suit, and the said findings were affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.11.1995, thus dismissing the appeal.
2.
The par3es shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. Trial court record has been perused.
[2] 3.
The brief facts, necessary for adjudica3on of the present appeal, are that defendant No.1 - Baldev Singh is the father of the plain3ff, whereas defendants No.4 to 8 are the sons of Hazura Singh, the paternal uncle of defendant No.1 - Baldev Singh. In an earlier civil suit bearing CS No.195-1983 ins3tuted by defendants No.2 and 3, defendant No.1 along with defendants No.4 to 8 suffered a decree dated 28.07.1983 in respect of the suit property by admiFng the claim of the plain3ffs therein. 4.
The present plain3ff has laid challenge to the above said decree on the ground that the property in ques3on was ancestral coparcenary property and, therefore, defendant No.1 had no authority to suffer any decree affec3ng his rights by birth. It is further the case of the plain3ff that the decree was not registered and hence did not confer any right or 3tle upon defendants No.2 and 3. It has also been pleaded that the subsequent sale of the property by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of defendants No.9 to 11 is illegal and not binding upon the plain3ff. On these premises, the suit for possession was filed.
5.
The contes3ng defendants resisted the claim by asser3ng that the decree dated 28.07.1983 was based upon a prior family seHlement arrived at between the par3es in the year 1980 and was, therefore, valid and binding. It was further pleaded that the property was not ancestral in the hands of defendant No.1 but was his self-acquired property, and thus, he was competent to deal with the same.
6.
The subsequent purchasers - defendants No. 9 & 10 claimed to be bona fide purchasers for valuable considera3on, having purchased the property through registered sale deeds and having taken possession thereof. 7.
Upon framing the issues and considera3on of the pleadings & evidence led by the par3es, the learned trial Court held that the property in dispute was not ancestral coparcenary property. It was further held that the subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for valuable considera3on and that the plain3ff was estopped by his own act and
[3] conduct, par3cularly in view of the fact that a por3on of the property had been purchased by his own mother. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. The learned First Appellate Court, upon reapprecia3on of the evidence, affirmed the findings of the trial Court and further held that the decree dated 28.07.1983 did not require registra3on, being based upon a family seHlement.
8.
Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that both the Courts below have erred in holding the property to be non-ancestral. It is further argued that the decree dated 28.07.1983, having the effect of transferring immovable property, required compulsory registra3on, and in the absence thereof, no 3tle could pass to defendants No.2 and 3. It is submiHed that once the decree is held to be invalid, the subsequent sale deeds would also fall to the ground.
9.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the concurrent findings and has submiHed that the decree in ques3on was merely a recogni3on of a prior family seHlement and did not create any new rights for the first 3me. It is further argued that the revenue record clearly establishes that the property was not ancestral and that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based upon proper apprecia3on of evidence and do not call for any interference. 10.
Having heard learned counsel for the par3es and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. 11.
Insofar as the nature of the property is concerned, the First Appellate Court has elaborately examined the revenue record and has traced the lineage of the property. It has been found that though the property originally belonged to Wazir Singh, it ul3mately came into the hands of Pakhar Singh (grandfather of Baldev) through Bholi, who had inherited the same from another branch of the family. Thus, the property did not descend through a direct line of male succession so as to retain the
[4] character of ancestral coparcenary property. Rather, it came through a source which, in law, renders it to be the separate property of the holder. 12.
Even the plain3ff, in his own tes3mony, admiHed this line of succession. In such circumstances, the finding recorded by the Courts below that the property was not ancestral in the hands of defendant No.1 is based on cogent evidence and correct applica3on of law, and no interference is warranted.
13.
The next conten3on raised by the appellant pertains to the validity of the decree dated 28.07.1983 on the ground of non-registra3on. A perusal of the record reveals that the said decree was passed on the basis of admissions made by the defendants in that suit and that the claim itself was founded upon a prior family seHlement arrived at between the par3es in the year 1980.
14.
It is well seHled that a family seHlement, if bona fide and intended to resolve disputes among family members, does not require registra3on. A decree passed in furtherance of such seHlement, which merely recognizes pre-exis3ng rights, is not compulsorily registrable. Registra3on is required only when the decree itself creates rights for the first 3me in immovable property. Reliance can be placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Kale and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidaon and others, 1976 AIR (Supreme Court) 807, Korukonda Chalapathi Rao and another Vs. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar, 2021(4) RCR (Civil) 433 and Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 393 and decisions of this Court rendered in Tarlok Chand Vs. Vijay Kumar, 1993(1) RRR 115 and Paramjit Singh Vs. Lakhwinder Kaur and another, 2022(2) PLR 22. 15.
In the present case, the decree in ques3on was clearly declaratory in nature and merely acknowledged the rights flowing from the earlier seHlement. Therefore, the conten3on of the appellant that the decree is invalid for want of registra3on is devoid of any merit.
[5] 16.
Another significant aspect of the maHer is that subsequent to the decree of 1983, defendants No.2 and 3 executed registered sale deeds in favour of defendants No.9 to 11. The evidence on record establishes that these purchasers were bona fide purchasers for valuable considera3on. It is also noteworthy that one of the purchasers, namely defendant No.11, is the mother of the plain3ff, and defendant No.1 himself was an aHes3ng witness to one of the sale deeds. These circumstances clearly indicate that the transac3ons were within the knowledge of the family, and the plain3ff, by his conduct, is estopped from challenging the same. The rights of bona fide purchasers, having acquired 3tle through registered instruments, deserve protec3on.
17.
It is also per3nent to note that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are concurrent findings of fact based upon apprecia3on of evidence. No perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence has been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdic3on under Sec3on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No substan3al ques3on of law arises for considera3on.
18.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are well reasoned and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The conclusions arrived at are fully jus3fied in law as well as on facts. 19.
Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
01.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 01.04.2026