A family settlement must be voluntary, with all parties having antecedent claims, and if based on fraud, coercion, or lacking registration, is inadmissible, impacting ownership rights claimed.

1. Appellants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal, before this Court, against the judgment and decree, dated 30th September, 2019, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No. 15-P/XIII/2008, titled as Smt. Rajinder Kaur and Another vs. Smt. Yashodan Devi and Others .

2. Vide judgment and decree, dated 30th September, 2019, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, preferred by the appellants, against the judgment and decree, dated 20th February, 2008, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No. 123/2002, titled as Rajinder Kaur and Another vs. Yashodhan Devi .

3. By virtue of the judgment and decree, dated 20th February, 2008, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants, for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. When, the lis was pending before the learned First Appellate Court, vide order, dated 11th March, 2016, respondents No. 3 to 10, namely, Ravinder Parkash, Ghanshyam, Tilak Raj, Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar, Savita Sood, Mayank Sood and Shashank Sood, had moved application for impleading them as respondents, in the present lis. The said application has been filed on the ground that the applicants have purchased part of the suit land from Smt. Yashodhan Devi and after the dismissal of the suit, the applicants were put in possession, however, part of the suit property at Mohal Dhoran could not be transferred due to status quo order by the Court.

5. The said application was considered by the learned First Appellate Court, however, the same was dismissed vide order, dated 11th March, 2016. Against the said order of dismissal, the applicants preferred CMPMO No. 196 of 2016, which was decided by this Court on 29th March, 2019, by allowing the application, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’). The operative part of the judgment, dated 11th March, 2016, is reproduced, as under:

“The petition is allowed, the petitioners herein are ordered to be impleaded, as defendants/respondents, in the appeal, concerned. However, as stated at bar by the learned counsel, for, the petitioners, the learned appellate Court, shall not permit, the petitioners to institute any written statement to the plaint, and also shall not permit the petitioners, to adduce any evidence on any issue, except for permitting them to place on record, the, certified copy of, a, verdict rendered by the Civil Concerned, where-through sale deed concerned, stands declared to be valid and, where-through the petitioners acquired title, in, a part of the suit property.

The parties are directed to appear before the learned appellate Court on 16.4.2019.”

6. For the sake of convenience, parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

7. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:

7.1. Plaintiffs-Rajinder Kaur and Nalini Kumari had filed the suit for declaration, to the effect that the plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession of the land, as entered in khata No. 72 min, khatauni No. 96, khasra Nos. 121, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130, 132, 134, 161, 168, 170, 225, 228, 246 measuring 15-25-62