The validity of a family settlement made before the Gram Panchayat and the rights of maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act were the central legal points established in the judgment.

PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

This regular second appeal by LRs of defendant No.1 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.1985 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Phillaur, whereby the suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal preferred by defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance, has been dismissed. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit.

The detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the RSA No.29 of 1988 judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that plaintiffs Smt. Harbans Kaur w/o Jharmal Singh and Jasbir Singh, Kulbir Singh minor sons of Jharmal Singh through their mother filed a suit for possession of 1/4th share in the land measuring 124 kanals 10 marlas situated within revenue limits of village Rurka Khurd, Tehsil Phillaur, fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint, against Chanchal Singh father-in-law of Harbans Kaur, grandfather of Jasbir Singh and Kulbir Singh and father of Jharmal Singh. It was alleged in the plaint that Jharmal Singh was of unsound mind and in order to make arrangement for maintenance of plaintiffs, Chanchal Singh effected a family settlement before the Gram Panchayat and the same was recorded in the proceedings book on 19.05.1967 and possession of 1/4th share of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs. It is alleged that in spite of settlement before the Panchayat and its incorporation in the proceedings book, Chanchal Singh at the instance of his another son Ajit Singh forcibly took the possession of the property which was given to the plaintiffs. For that reason suit for possession as well as permanent injunction was filed for restraining Chanchal Singh from alienating the suit property.

Before the Court of first instance, name of Jharmal Singh was struck off as he was not sued through next friend being of unsound mind. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and filed written statement through his son Ajit Singh as general power of attorney. It was denied that any settlement has been arrived at between the parties. Actually it is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence caused by the panchayat. Plaintiffs had no right of maintenance against Chanchal Singh and they were never put in possession of the land in dispute. Jharmal Singh was not of unsound mind.

Court of first instance, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: -

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property by way of family arrangement? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP

3. Relief.”

Parties led their respective evidence. The Court of first instance, after appreciating evidence on record decided issue No.1 in favour of plaintiffs and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for joint possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land. Against the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance, appeal preferred by the appellants failed and the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, this regular second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the time of admission, no substantial question of law was framed, however, during the pendency of the appeal following substantial questions of law have been placed on record:

“1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writing Ex.P1 which purported to be a transfer of an immovable property, which required registration, could be admitted in evidence for want of registration? Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the approach of the learned Courts below to