The court upheld the sanctity of a consent decree based on a family settlement and emphasized the principle of estoppel and res judicata in challenging such decrees.

L. N.MITTAL, J. (Oral) - C. M. No. 5746-C of 2011 :

It is stated that Annexures A-2 to A-7 are part of the lower court record, but Annexure A-1 is not part of evidence. Accordingly, prayer for placing on record Annexure A-1 is declined. Annexures A-2 to A-7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Appeal:

Plaintiffs, who were successful in the trial court, but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, have filed the instant second appeal.

2. Plaintiffs in the suit challenged consent decree dated 29.10.1992 suffered by one Fatta in favour of Zile Singh and Sat Narain (defendants no.1 and 2 herein) and sought consequential relief. Nanhu had three sons i.e. Fatta, Manphool and Moti Ram. Manphool died in the year 1970 or prior to it. His inheritance mutation was sanctioned on 13.08.1970 in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 herein, who are his sons. Fatta died in the year 1996. Moti Ram died in the year 2001. Moti Ram's son Ram Diya pre-deceased him in the year 1997. Plaintiffs are legal heirs of said Ram Diya being his widow, two minor daughters and a minor son. The plaintiffs alleged that transfer of one-third share of Fatta in the suit land in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 by way of consent decree dated 29.10.1992 is null and void. Defendants no.1 and 2 got the said decree fraudulently without consent and knowledge of Fatta. It was also pleaded that Fatta never appeared in the suit, in which consent decree was passed nor he filed written statement in that suit nor made statement in Court in that suit admitting the claim of defendants no.1 and 2 herein, who were plaintiffs in that suit. His thumb impressions might have been obtained by misrepresentation and used to obtain the impugned consent decree. Various other pleas were also raised.

3. Defendants no.1 and 2 contested the suit and defended the impugned consent decree. It was pleaded that Fatta suffered the same voluntarily. Defendants no.1 and 2 had been serving Fatta. After death of father of defendants no.1 and 2, they were brought up by Fatta, who also performed their marriages. Moti Ram (predecessor of plaintiffs) resided separately from Fatta. Various other pleas were also raised. Will allegedly executed by Fatta in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 was also set up.

4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2009, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. However, two first appeals preferred separately by defendant no.1 Zile Singh and defendant no.2 Sat Narain have been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, vide common judgment and decrees dated 10.02.2011 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal as well as connected R. S. A. No. 2058 of 2011 titled Lichhami Devi and others Vs. Sat Narain and others because there were two first appeals. Both these second appeals shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.

6. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the impugned consent decree was obtained by impersonation or by misrepresentation and fraud. On the contrary, plaintiffs have proved that the said decree was suffered by Fatta himself. Fatta also made statement in the Court in the previous suit, in which consent decree was passed. Statement made in the Court cannot be said to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or by using blank paper bearing thumb impressions of Fatta. It is manifest that plea to this effect taken by the plaintiffs is patently unreliable and untenable. Statement recorded in the Court carries great sanctity. It cannot be said that the same was recorded on blank paper bearing thumb impressions.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that consent decree was suffered by Fatta on the plea of relinquishment of his share in the suit land in favour of defendants no.1 and