Swatanter Kumar, J. - (1.) Vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1996 teamed Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the earlier decree dated 15.1.1986 passed in Suit No.623 of 1981 titled as Ram Kishan v/s. Sardari Devi was null and not binding upon the rights of Smt. Sardari Devi, and further declared her to be the owner in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. The Court also granted relief of injunction to the plaintiff. The defendant in the suit preferred an appeal and the learned first Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 5.6.1999 dismissed the same. The learned first Appellate Court, while affirming the findings of facts and the view taken by the learned trial Court held as under: "Next aspect in this case is that the Court passed the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1986 on the basis of compromise Ex.CX and the statement of the parties recorded in the Court including statement of Smt. Sardari Devi. Had Smt. Sardari Devi appeared in the Court on 15.1.1986, then why she had not put her signature on the compromise Ex.CX and why the Court had not insisted that the compromise Ex.CX should be signed by Smt. Sardari Devi which was requirement of the law. These facts assume much more importance because Smt. Sardari Devi has taken specific ple'a of misrepresentation which established on the file on the basis of these facts. So, I am of the view that the learned trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to declare the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1986 to be illegal, null and void." "Another aspect of the case is that as per recent law laid down by our Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhoop Singh v/s. Ram Singh Major and Ors. if a decree is based on the basis of written statement admitting the claim to be correct, it is not a compromise decree but it is a judgment on admission which requires compulsory registration if the decree creates right for the first time for a value of Rs. 100/ - or upwards. Identical are the facts of the case in hand because the rights were created first time in the immovable property for a value of more than Rs. 100/ -. So, it was not a compromise decree but it was a judgment on admission which requires compulsory registration."
(2.) Aggrieved from the above said judgment and decree and the concurrent findings, the defendant -appellant herein has preferred this regular second appeal.
(3.) The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant before this Court is that the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1986 was a decree passed on compromise entered into between the parties and as such the suit and/or the appeal before the first Appellate Court was not maintainable in law. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banwari Lal v/s. Chando Devi (Smt.) (through LRs. ) and Anr ; and of the High Court in the cases of Mukhtiar Singh v/s. Arjun Singh, 1993 (Suppl.) CCC 81; Hari Ram and Ors. v/s. Nafe Singh and Ors.? ; Balwinder Singh v/s. Karnail Singh, 2000(3) CCC 92 and Kishan Chand v/s. Rajinder Kaur,, 1993 (Suppl.) SCC 308 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the compromise decree dated 15,1.1986 was the result of fraud and misrepresentation and as such the same could be challenged by filing as independent suit and the learned Courts below have correctly applied the law to the facts of the present case and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff does not suffer from any error. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the High Court in the cases of Ruby Sales and Services (P) Ltd. v/s. State of Maharashtra , 1994(1) RRR 551; Karnail Singh and Ors. v/s. Dalip Kaur and Ors. and Kashmira Singh (died) through LRs. v/s. Gram Panchayat of village Budha Khera .;