Family settlements recognizing pre-existing rights do not require registration, allegations of fraud must be pleaded with specific details, and a minor can validly be a transferee in a family settlement arrangement.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been instituted assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Courts below, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2004, affirmed the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003.

2. The factual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that the appellants–plaintiffs, being husband and wife, claim to have purchased the suit land measuring 287 kanals 3 marlas, situated in Village Naurangpur, vide sale deed dated 22.07.1997.

2.1. The appellants–plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, asserting that both the plaintiffs and the defendants were co-owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares, i.e., 1/6th share each, as fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. It was pleaded that initially the suit land belonged to the plaintiffs; plaintiff No.1 was owner in possession of ¾ share out of 166 kanals 7 marlas, out of which he transferred 76 kanals 16 marlas to the defendants in equal shares. Similarly, plaintiff No.2 was owner in possession of 120 kanals 16 marlas, out of which she transferred 130 marlas and 14 marlas to the defendants in equal shares. In this manner, both the plaintiffs and defendants became owners in possession of 27 kanals 16 marlas each, constituting 1/6th share in the suit land.

2.2. It was further pleaded that a civil court decree dated 08.03.1991 passed in Civil Suit No.262 of 1991 titled Dilbagh Singh etc. versus Ishwar Singh etc. was acted upon, however, inadvertently, mutation No.2399 dated 28.08.1991 was sanctioned only in favour of the defendants, without reflecting the share of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the defendants, taking undue advantage of the incorrect mutation entries, intended to alienate the suit property, thereby necessitating the institution of the suit.

3. Defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, and estoppel. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiffs were earlier owners in possession of the suit land and that a valid civil court decree dated 08.03.1991 had been passed in favour of the defendants. It was asserted that, in pursuance thereof, the defendants had become owners in possession of the suit property. The allegation regarding incorrect sanction of mutation No.2399 was specifically denied, and it was contended that the mutation was rightly sanctioned in accordance with the decree. Dismissal of the suit was thus prayed for.

3.1. Defendants No.2 and 3 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs by filing their written statements on the basis of admission. Defendant No.4, being a minor, was represented through a Court Guardian appointed vide order dated 16.09.1999, who adopted the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.1.

4. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved an application for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed vide order dated 22.04.2002. By way of amendment, the nature of the suit was altered into one for possession, and it was pleaded that plaintiff No.1 was owner of ¾ share and plaintiff No.2 was owner of ¼ share in the suit property. It was further alleged that the decree dated 08.03.1991 had been obtained by the defendants through fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence, and was thus illegal, void, and without jurisdiction. It was also pleaded that the said decree was bad for w