JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2003 and by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that she was owner in possession of the suit property measuring 8 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Laharpur, Tehsil Jagadhri fully described in the plaint. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent that she was the widow of Shadi Ram, hence, the only sole heir of deceased - Shadi Ram. Shadi Ram is stated to have died on 28.03.1997. It was further the case that during the lifetime of Shadi Ram, the defendant-appellant - Raj Kumar - had by misrepresenting and by fraud got a judgment and decree dated 02.03.1996 in his favour being civil suit no.535-CS of 1995 titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Shadi Ram, which was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-respondent. A written statement was filed by the defendant-appellant averring therein that Shadi Ram was his maternal uncle and he was living with the defendant-appellant and that he had incurred all the expenses for Shadi Ram. In 1995 a family settlement took place in which the suit property was given to him by Shadi Ram. It was further averred that in a civil suit filed by the defendant-appellant against Shadi Ram, Shadi Ram filed an admitted written statement, and that the judgment was valid and binding on all. Replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether the judgment, decree dated 2.3.96 passed in Civil Suit No.535 of 1995 titled as 'Raj Kumar Vs. Shadi Ram' in respect of the suit land are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside, as alleged ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property, as alleged ? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the special costs ? OPD

8. Relief.

3. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2003. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellant wherein the plaintiff-respondent - Maro Devi - was proceeded against ex parte. The appeal was accepted by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.2004. Maro Devi preferred a regular second appeal being RSA No.849 of 2005 which was dismissed on 22.01.2007. Aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeal No.6693 of 2009 was filed which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.08.2017 and the matter was remanded to the First Appellate Court for a decision afresh on merits. Thereafter, the First Appellate Court decided the case afresh vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2018 upholding the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant would contend that the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. It is urged that the defendant-appellant, in the present case, was the nephew of Shadi Ram and he looked after his maternal uncle and pleased with his services, Shadi Ram suffered a judgment and decree in his favour giving all his self-acquired properties to the defendant-appellant. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that being a family settlement, the decree did not require registration. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon Dhian Singh & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors. [2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 387]; Bant Singh Vs. Lakhbir Singh & Ors. [2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 676]; Jagdish & Ors. Vs. Ram Karan & Ors. [2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 657]; Hari