The main legal point established in the judgment is that an oral family settlement subsequently acknowledged by a Civil Court decree does not require registration, and the word 'family' in a family settlement should be given a wider meaning to include even those persons who are related and may not have direct right of inheritance.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of RSA No.2708 of 2005, Civil Revision No.1754 of 2014 and Civil Revision No.3105 of 2017.

2. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present case:-

(i) Whether a decree passed by the Court under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC (consent decree) acknowledging earlier oral family settlement is required to be registered or not?

(ii) Whether in a family settlement, the word family includes the persons who are having right of succession only or the word family is to be given a wider meaning so as to include even those persons who are related and may not have direct right of inheritance/succession?

(iii) What is the period of limitation for challenging a decree passed by the Court?

3. Defendants-appellants are in regular second appeal against judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

4. Plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit challenging Civil Court decree dated 22.02.1984, passed in Civil Suit No.75, dated 15.02.1984.

5. Late Smt. Jattan was owner of land measuring 107 bighas and 2 biswas. She had received the property from her husband Nanak. She was issueless. A small genealogy tree of the family is as under:-

6. Late Smt. Jattan, admittedly, executed a registered Will dated 24.10.1983 bequeathing her property in favour of great grand sons of Jaura Singh, her grandfather.

7. Thereafter, pursuant to a family settlement she admitted that defendants-appellants, namely, Dhian Singh, Nachhatar Singh and Hakam Singh are owners in possession of land measuring 57 bighas and 6 biswas. This family settlement was acknowledged in the Civil Court decree by Late Smt. Jattan, dated 22.02.1984.

8. Late Smt. Jattan died on 18.08.1989. Plaintiffs, who are grand sons and great grand sons filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of joint possession, challenging decree dated 22.02.1984.

9. The Courts below have set aside the Civil Court decree dated 22.02.1984 on the ground that Late Smt. Jattan was exclusive owner of the property and, therefore, transfer of the property through a Civil Court decree requires registration. Hence, it has been held that decree dated 22.02.984 is null and void.

10. It may be significant to mention here that the defendants-appellants had filed a suit claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the property i.e. 57 bighas and 6 biswas on the basis of a previous family settlement. Late Smt. Jattan filed the written statement admitting the claim of the appellants. Thus, the Civil Court after finding that the parties are not at issue, passed a decree on the basis of admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In common language, such decree is called consent decree.

11. Now the stage is set for discussing the questions of law framed above.

Question No.(i)

Whether a decree passed by the Court under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC (consent decree) acknowledging earlier oral family settlement is required to be registered?

12. The Courts in India have always being lean in favour of Family Settlement and against disturbing it. There are catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein the Court had held that an oral family settlement subsequently acknowledged by a memorandum of family settlement or a Civil Court decree would not require registration. The first judgment on this aspect is AIR 1955 SC 481 Sahu Madho Dass v. Mukund Ram. In thi