- (1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the communication dated 24.06.2010 whereby the petitioner was directed to get property transferred in his favour by way of sale or gift deed.
(2.) The House No.172, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh was owned by Late Sh.Girdhari Lal. Late Sh.Girdhari Lal had another property at Delhi. Petitioner and respondent No.3, sons of Late Sh.Girdhari Lal, inherited the estate of their father on the basis of registered Will dated 15.09.1980. It was on 10.01.2005, petitioner and respondent No.3 entered into family settlement whereby exclusive possession and ownership of House No.172, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh was given to the petitioner whereas respondent No.3 became the exclusive owner in possession of the property situated in New Delhi. On the basis of such family settlement, the petitioner filed a civil suit which was decreed on 12.12.2009. A copy of the said judgment has been attached as Annexure P-2. In the said suit, respondent No.3 was proceeded ex-parte. On the basis of the said decree in the civil suit, the petitioner sought the transfer of share of respondent No.3 in his favour which was declined by the Estate Officer vide communication dated 24.06.2010 (Annexure P-3), subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) In reply, the respondent-Administration has pointed out that the petitioner has earlier filed a civil suit in which the Administration was impleaded as defendant. The said civil suit was dismissed on 28.11.2002 (Annexure P-4). It is, thus, contended that the decree now produced by the petitioner is collusive decree and is to avoid the payment of stamp duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a decree passed on consent or an ex-parte decree is a valid decree which does not require registration when such decree is based on a family settlement. Reliance is placed upon judgments rendered in cases Jai Lal versus Chhattar Singh and others,2004 4 RCR 775 and Prabhu Lal versus Laxmi and others,2007 1 RCR 199.;