The judgment emphasized the importance of registration under the Registration Act 1908 and the consequences of obtaining a decree without fulfilling the registration requirements.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment decree passed by the Ist Appellate Court, whereby the judgment-decree dated 11,10.1993 passed in the suit titled as Brij Lal v. Sohan Lal was found to be null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration alleging therein that Sohan Lal son of Mam Raj, husband of plaintiff No. I and father of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 7 marlas 3 sarsais. He died few weeks prior to the institution of this suit, leaving behind the plaintiffs, as his only legal representatives. The defendants have nothing to do with the suit land but claim right on the basis of frivolous civil suit No. 1754 of 20.8.1993 titled Brij Lal v. Sohan Lal, wherein they obtained a judgment-decree dated 11.10.1993 with respect to the suit land in their favour by practising fraud upon the Court. It was alleged that defendant Sohan Lal never resided at the address given in the suit. No notice was served upon deceased nor Sohan Lal appeared in the said suit. No written statement was filed nor he engaged Shri H.R. Saharan, Advocate. It was further stated that possession of the suit land was never delivered to the defendants by deceased Sohan Lal and that there was no question of family settlement between the defendants and deceased Sohan Lal.

3. The defendant-appellants contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. It was stated that deceased was owner in possession of the suit land but by virtue of judgment and decree which is legal, valid and binding on the parties. The defendants are the owner of the suit land. The decree was based on the basis of admission made by Shri Sohan Lal in his written statement as well as in the statement made before the Court.

4. Issue No. 1 is the material issue which reads as under;-

"1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1993 passed by Shri Raj Kumar, the then Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa in Civil Suit No. 1754 of 20.8.1993 titled as Brij Lal and Anr. v. Sohan Lal are null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs as alleged? If so to what effect?...OPP"

5. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, after it was found that Sohan Lal appeared in the previous suit and made statement, admitting the claim of the plaintiff. However, in appeal against the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has sought to challenge the decree passed in the previous suit on the ground that the question of family settlement as claimed by the defendants does not arise. The defendants have no pre-existing right in the property of Sohan Lal. The property could be transferred only vide a registered deed as required under Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 . In the grounds of appeal, the plaintiff has claimed that there was no question of family settlement, but the learned Trial Court has not considered this aspect of the case.

6. The Ist Appellate Court relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Ors., (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 559 held that since the defendants had no pre-existing right, therefore, right or interest in the suit land could not be created for the first time on the basis of judgments and decree dated 11.10.1993.

7. The learned 1st Appellate Court has recorded such finding in view of averments made in the previous suit (Exh.D2) wherein the defendants have pleaded family settlement, however, no evidence was adduced by the defendant as to what kind of settlement has taken place nor any evidence as to when family settlement has taken place. There is nothing on record as to what had fallen to the share of Sohan Lal in such family settlement.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two fold submission before this Court. Firstly, the plaintiff-respondent has not sought to avoid the judgments and decree passed in the previ