IMPORTANT POINT
Consent decree-Setting aside of-Decree was procured by fraud on ground of Family settlement-Appellant had no antecedent title, claim or interest in the land in dispute-Contention that there was a family settlement between the parties-Not sustainable.
Family settlement-Essentials of-Explained

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 23, 2002, passed by Addl. District Judge, Rohtak, setting aside the judgment and decree dated December 22, 1998, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak.

2. The appellant herein, is the defendant in the suit filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, by the respondent, challenging the judgment and decree dated December 22.1995, passed in a Civil suit titled Jagdish V/s. Rajwanti. From the facts on record, it has emerged that the appellant/defendant is sisters son of Rajwanti-plaintiff. Rajwanti suffered a decree dated december 22, 1995 in the suit filed by the appellant against her in respect to 1/10th share of the land measuring 246 kanals and 17 marlas. In terms of the aforesaid decree, the appellant was declared as the owner in possession of 1/10th share on the basis of an alleged family settlement arrived at between the parties. The decree was a consent decree passed on the basis of the consent written statement and statement of rajwanti recorded before the Court.

3. This decree came to be challenged by the respondent in Civil Suit No.334 of 1997 before the Trial Court on two grounds, (i)that the decree has been procured by fraud and (ii) there was no pre-existing right of the defendant, hence, the decree required registration.

4. To establish fraud, it has been alleged that the defendant used to cultivate the land of the plaintiff on lease basis, which land was inherited by her from her father. The lease amount was payable @ Rs.10,000/-per year. The defendant did not pay the lease money for four years and the plaintiff along with one Bhale Ram, father-in-law and her husbands relative went to village Karontha to collect the lease money, where a settlement took place that the defendant will pay the arrears of lease money i. e. Rs.40,000/-for four years and also Rs.13,000/- for the year 1996-97 in Haryana Kshetriya Gramin bank and the plaintiff shall make a statement to this effect. It is further alleged that signatures of the plaintiff were obtained on blank papers. The plaintiff was taken to the court on December 19, 1995, stating that the suit is about settlement between the parties. In the suit, the plaintiff admitted the claim. The respondent also alleged that no summons were ever received by her nor the contents of written statements were read over to her. However, she has admitted that an amount of Rs.53,000/- was deposited in her name by the defendant in the bank on December 21, 1995. While appearing in the Court as a witness, the plaintiff also stated that she is married and has two sons. She stated that there was no family settlement between the defendant and the plain-tiff. She also denied the allegations of the defendant that he spent the entire money for the marriage of the plaintiff and any family settlement was entered between the parties in respect to the suit land. The defendant pleaded that on the basis, of a family settlement and in consideration of the maintenance amount of Rs.53,000/- the plaintiff had suffered a decree in his favour. He also denied that the land was ever given to him on lease basis.

5. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated december 22, 1998, on two grounds (i) that the plaintiff voluntarily suffered the decree in favour of the defendant, in such a case, family settlement is to be presumed (ii) that the consent decree was passed on the. basis of pre-existing right, it did not require registration. The allegations of fraud were also not accepted by the trial Court.

6. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District judge, Rohtak, who has set aside the judgment and decree by reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by allowing the appeal vide