Mahesh Grover, J. — The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to say that she was owner in possession of the suit land and that the respondent, who was her brother, had managed to get a decree dated 15.11.1995 in civil suit No. 1133 of 1995 titled as Jawahar Singh v. Smt. Rajjo by which he got the suit property in his favour. The said decree was sought to be challenged by her on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and also on the ground that the same was not registered as it involved the alienation of immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100/- and there was no family settlement between them.
2. The respondent admitted the relationship of the plaintiff-appellant with him and stated that she was his real sister and that mutual settlement had taken place between them and the suit land was given to him and that there was no misrepresentation or fraud and the decree was suffered of her own free volition.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property as pleaded? OPP
2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 15.11.95 passed in civil suit titled Jawahar Singh v. Rajjo is illegal on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
3. Whether the mutation No. 271 dated 7.5.96 sanctioned on the basis of the decree dated 15.11.95 is illegal? OPP
4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present appeal by his own act and conduct? OPD
6. Whether the suit is filed by the plaintiff at the instance of her brother Jai Singh, if so to what effect? OPD
7. Relief.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant and held that fraud was not established, but the decree ought to have been registered and since it was not done, the same was a nullity.
5. In the appeal filed by the respondent, the lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on the issue of registration of the decree, but maintained that fraud had not been established. The appellant had filed cross-objections before the lower Appellate Court challenging the findings of the trial Court on the issue of fraud. Her cross-objections were also dismissed.
6. This has resulted in the present appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.
7. It was contended by Shri B.R Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant that the lower Appellate Court has gone wrong in holding that the registration of the decree was not compulsory. There was no family settlement inter se between the parties and that the property had devolved upon them by succession and the parties had no pre-existing right on it and, therefore, the right could not have been relinquished by the appellant, who was the sister in favour of her brother without getting the decree registered. In support of this contention, he relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as 2002 (1) R.C.R (Civil) 441, Shailesh Kumar v. Mrs. Sandhya Gupta. It was also contended by Shri Gupta that the Civil Court could not pass a decree mechanically based on the admission or consent, but it has to satisfy itself regarding the claim which was made in the suit. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as 1999 (1) RCR (Civil) 628 : 1999 (1) P.L.J 429, Shisnpal and others v. Vikram.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the decree had been validly suffered by the appellant in favour of the respondent. Fraud had not been established and, therefore, the appellant, who was a party to the consent decree, cannot challenge the same on the ground of non-registration.
9. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that fraud and misrepresentation had not been established and that the decree had been suffered by the appellant of her own free volition in favour of the respondent. There is, thus, no occasion to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below.
11. The only question that how survives is as to whether a party, who has suffered a consent decree, can challenge it on the ground of non-registration. In my opinion, the party, who has suffered the decree, can challenge it on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation alone and not on the ground of non-registration. Either the concerned party denies the very genesis of the decree by saying that it was the result of fraud, misrepresentation and that there was no intention to suffer the decree, but to say that after suffering the decree that the same was not registered is not permissible. It has been held by this Court in the judgment reported as 2000 (1) RCR (Civil) 122 : 2000 (1) Civil Court Cases 188 (Parveen Kumar… v. Shiv Ram Alias Sheo Ram… that the person, who has suffered the decree, cannot challenge it on the ground of non-registration. The decree can be challenged only on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or if it has been passed by the Court of incompetent jurisdiction. The party who suffers the consent decree is estopped by his own conduct to challenge the same except on the grounds mentioned above. There has to be sanctity accorded to the statements made before the Courts. It was so held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 106 (SC) : AIR 2001 S.C 2790, Salkia Businessmen's Association and others v. Howrah Municipal Corporation and others, wherein it was observed as under :
“The memorandum and terms of the compromise in this case became part of the orders of the High Court itself when the writ petition was finally disposed of in terms of the compromise reached between the parties notwithstanding that there was no verbatim reproduction of the same in the order. While so, it is beyond one's comprehension as to how any violation of terms of compromise could have been viewed by the Court as a matter of mere contract between parties and under that pretext absolve itself of the responsibility to enforce it, except by doing violence to the terms thereof in letter and spirit. If Courts are not to honour and implement their own orders, and encourage party litigants - be they public authorities, to invent methods of their own to short circuit and give a go-bye to the obligations and liabilities incurred by them under orders of the Court - the rule of law will certainly become a casualty, in the process - a costly consequence to be jealously averted by all and at any rate by highest Courts in States in the Country.”
12. In view of the above, once the factum of fraud or misrepresentation has not been established, it shall not be open to the appellant to challenge the decree on the ground of non-registration.
13. Resultantly, I do not find any ground to interfere in this appeal which is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such.
Appeal dismissed.