The court emphasized the principle that a family settlement or consent decree is based on the assumption of an antecedent title in the parties and acknowledged various legal provisions related to family settlements, consent decrees, and registration requirements.

1. Hari Singh plaintiff-appellant having remained unsuccessful concurrently in the two courts below has filed the present regular second appeal.

2. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff-appellant to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 4/02/1987 in the suit Jagjit Singh and another V/s. Inder Singh was null and void, ineffective and not binding upon his rights. The plaintiff claimed that Inder Singh had two sons, Hari Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The land in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Inder Singh. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that the parties were governed by the customary law wherein the ancestral property could not be alienated by the holder and, therefore, the judgment and decree dated 4/02/1987 suffered by said Inder Singh in favour of Jagjit Singh and Karnail Singh were null and void, illegal and not binding upon his rights.

3. According to the plaintiff the said land could not be transferred by Inder Singh except for a legal necessity.

4. The defendants put in appearance and filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. They supported the decree dated 4/02/1987 as legal and valid. It was specifically pleaded by them that no fraud had been played by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 upon Inder Singh and, therefore, the said decree having been suffered by him voluntarily was perfectly legal and valid and binding upon the parties. The defendants further denied the factum of the land in dispute being ancestral.

5. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and it was held that the aforesaid decree was legal and binding. The matter was taken up in appeal by the plaintiff before the learned first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Additionally, the learned first appellate Court also held that the property in question was not shown to be ancestral in the hands of Inder Singh. On that basis, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

6. The plaintiff has now approached this Court through the present regular second appeal.

7. I have heard Shri Pritam Saini, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Bhag Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

8. Shri Pritam Saini, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in fact the finding recorded by the learned first appellate Court that the property was not ancestral was erroneous and contrary to the record. According to the learned counsel, the property was shown to be ancestral in the hands of Inder Singh.

9. After taking into consideration the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I find that the said submission is without any basis. In fact it has been specifically held by the learned first appellate Court that there was no evidence on the record to show that the suit property in the hands of Inder Singh was inherited by him from his grand-father. On that basis the learned first appellate Court has rightly observed that the ancestral nature of the suit property was not proved. Even during the present appeal nothing has been shown from the record that the said finding recorded by the learned first appellate Court was contrary to the evidence on the record. Thus, I affirm the said findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court to hold that the suit property in the hands of Inder Singh was not ancestral in nature.

10. Once it is held that the property in dispute was not ancestral in the hands of Inder Singh then apparently the claim of the present plaintiff Hari Singh who is son of Inder Singh and claims share in the property only on the basis of the same being ancestral in nature falls to the ground. If the property was not shown to be ancestral in the hands of Inder Singh then obviously Hari Singh being his son could have no interest in the property and could not make any grievance a