Punjab and Haryana High Court – Consent Decree by Father in Favour of Nephews Valid; No Proof of Fraud or Need for Registration

Case Name: Maya Devi v. Vijay Kumar and Others

Citation: RSA No. 140 of 2012

Date of Judgment: 06.01.2020

Bench: Justice Lisa Gill

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a consent decree dated 06.11.1993 executed by Sanwal Singh in favour of his nephews was valid and binding. The plaintiff’s plea that the decree was obtained by fraud and required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act was rejected. The Court held that once Sanwal Singh, the predecessor-in-interest, had voluntarily suffered the decree and lived for more than two years thereafter without challenge, the allegation of fraud was untenable. A consent decree in recognition of pre-existing rights or family arrangements does not require registration.

Summary: The plaintiff, daughter of Sanwal Singh, filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and injunction against her cousins, the defendants, claiming that a decree dated 06.11.1993 in their favour had been obtained fraudulently from her father, who was illiterate. She contended that the decree, even if genuine, was ineffective for want of registration and that the land was self-acquired property of Sanwal Singh, which devolved solely upon her as his heir. The defendants argued that they were part of a joint Hindu family with Sanwal Singh, that he lived with them till his death in 1995, and that the decree had been validly executed. Both the trial court and first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, holding that the decree was validly suffered by Sanwal Singh.

In second appeal, the High Court reviewed the evidence, noting that Sanwal Singh had appeared in court in 1993, filed a written statement through counsel, and admitted the claim of the defendants on oath. Mutation No. 778 had been sanctioned in 1995 in their favour, while Sanwal Singh was still alive. The plaintiff and her witnesses admitted that Sanwal Singh was residing with the defendants and had a joint ration card with them. The Court emphasized that family arrangements and settlements, even if oral, are given legal effect, and a consent decree recording such settlement does not require registration. Reliance was placed on Bachan Singh v. Kartar Singh (2002) 2 RCR (Civil) 495.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below. It concluded that there was no illegality or perversity in the judgments, that the plea of fraud was unsubstantiated, and that the compromise decree of 06.11.1993 was valid and binding on the plaintiff.