The central legal point established in the judgment is that a consent decree would require registration unless there is a pre-existing right in favor of the decree-holder.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1985 passed in civil suit titled Rajinder v. Chalti and all consequent proceedings in pursuance there of are null and void on the rights of the plaintiffs with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs.

2. Plaintiff Chalti Devi is the daughter of Nandan s/o Ayodhya Prashad. Ayadhya Prashad had another son Daulat Ram who had two sons Dina Nath and Sham Lal. The defendants are the sons of Dina Nath.

3. On the death of Nandan Ram on 22.5.1973, Smt. Bhalti Devi inherited 1/2 share in the agricultural land measuring 51 Kanals 7 Marias situated in village Kirmach, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Rajinder Kumar son of Dina Nath and Jai Karan minor through his brother Rajinder Kumar had filed a civil suit No. 554 of 1985 on 25.5.1985 alleging that six months prior to the institution of the suit, Smt. Chalti Devi, plaintiff No. 1, effected a family settlement in the presence of the family members and they were declared owners of the suit property. The case was fixed for 13.09.1985 but on 30.5.1985 on the purported application of Smt. Chalti Devi the case was taken up as she had filed written statement on the same day admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. The statement of Smt. Chalti Devi and that of her learned counsel was recorded and decree was passed on 30.5.1985.

4. On 17.3.1986, plaintiffs i.e. Smt. Chalti Devi and her sons, instituted the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking declaration that the decree dated 30.5.1985 and all subsequent actions in pursuance of the decree are null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. It has been claimed by the plaintiffs that Smt. Chalti Devi suffered a decree in favour of her sons i.e. plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 on 12.06.1985 and when they went to Halqa Patwari in order to give him the copy of the decree for effecting the change in the record, they were informed of the impugned decree in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs have alleged that Richhpal, son of Smt. Chalti Devi, was admitted in Civil Hospital, Kamal, in the month of May, 1985. Dina Nath, father of the defendants, came to her and fraudulently obtained her thumb-impressions on some plain papers on the allegations that in connection with some pending case concerning their land her thumb-impressions were required. Due to relationship she believed him and put her thumb-impressions. Later on, she came to know that decree dated 30.05.1985 was obtained as a result of fraud and misrepresentation. She alleged that a false story of family settlement has been set up as they are not members of the joint Hindu family and, therefore, there is no question of family settlement.

5. The defendants contested the suit and stated that plaintiff No. 1 had "relinquished her rights" by way of a civil Court decree in favour of the defendants. The father of the defendants had performed the marriages of the children of plaintiff No. 1 and has always stood by her in social functions. The plaintiff was residing in village Sirsal whereas the land is situated in village Kirmich and, thus, family settlement was arrived at between the parties. Plaintiff No. 1 voluntarily and willingly admitted the claim of the defendants in the Court. It is further mentioned that after the death of Nandan Ram, father of Smt. Chalti Devi, a family settlement was arrived at wherein Smt. Chalti Devi relinquished her right in favour of Dina Nath and he became owner to the extent of share of his brother Nandan Ram. A writing to this effect was executed in the panchayat on 5.6.1973. Subsequently, there was another family settlement in the month of January, 1985 on the basis of which impugned decree was passed.

6. The parties h