The validity of a consent decree based on a family settlement and the requirement of registration for transfer of rights in property.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby suit challenging the decree dated 20.7.1979 in favour of the defendant Nos.l and 2 suffered by their mother Smt. Ram Kaur was dismissed.

2. Smt. Ram Kaur was owner of agricultural land measuring 26 kanals 7 marlas situated in village Bhagwai. Her two sons namely Chattar Singh and Lal Singh filed a suit claiming ownership of the said property against Smt. Ram Kaur. Smt. Ram Kaur suffered consent decree in favour of her said two sons on 20.7.1979. It is the said decree which is being disputed by another son of Smt. Ram Kaur in the present suit.

3. The decree is sought to be avoided on the ground that the decree is collusive, illegal and that no family settlement on the basis of which decree has been passed has been produced on record. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the decree is collusive and that the defendants have failed to prove family settlement. However, in appeal the Appellate Court reversed such finding holding that the decree passed on the basis of consent is as much binding on the parties as the one obtained by contest. Reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in Harpal and Ors. v. Smt. Ram Piari and Ors., 1981 P.L.J. 492. The first Appellate Court also found that there is no evidence of any fraud except the bald statement of the plaintiff appearing as PW3.

4. Before this Court the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that no summons were issued to Smt. Ram Kaur in the previous suit and there is no family settlement produced on record on the basis of which Smt. Ram Kaur could suffer consent decree in favour of her two sons ignoring the present appellant. It has also been argued that the decree requires registration as it is transfer of rights by mother in favour of her sons.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is correct that summons were not issued as the decree was passed on the very next date of the filing of the suit but it could not be disputed that the decree was passed on the basis of written statement filed by Smt. Ram Kaur admitting the claim of the plaintiffs and who also appeared before the court admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. Therefore, merely because summons were not issued will not make the decree suffered by Smt. Ram Kaur as illegal or one suffering from fraud.

6. The defendants in the present suit have filed suit earlier alleging family settlement. Such claim of the defendants herein was accepted by their mother. It is not necessary that the family settlement is reduced into writing. The parties can settle their dispute orally. If on the basis of such settlement the mother has accepted such family settlement it cannot be said that there was no family settlement which could be accepted by mother Smt. Ram Kaur.

7. The argument that the decree requires registration as it is the transfer of rights in the property of the mother in favour of her son is again devoid of merit. Family arrangement can be entered between the parties who have some semblance of the right in the property. Being the son of Smt. Ram Kaur, the defendants are members of her family and such defendants could enter into family settlement to maintain peace and harmony in family. In this regard, reference may be made to Kale and Ors. V/s. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 807.

8. Since such family arrangement has been accepted by Smt. Ram Kaur, it cannot be said that such decree was creating rights in favour of defendants herein for the first time. Therefore, such decree would not require any registration. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal.