Jokhan Lal vs Smt. Pushpa Devi and Others

Hon''ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2005.

A suit for permanent injunction was filed against the respondents by the plaintiff-appellant. The suit proceeded and written statement was filed denying the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. The suit was decreed. Respondents feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court preferred an appeal before the appellate court and the said appeal was heard and partly allowed by the appellate court by means of judgment and order dated 17.1.2005. The plaintiff-appellant has come up against the aforesaid order, inter alia, on the substantial question of law that the registration of family settlement was not required under law, as such, the entire property situated in Village-Ramganj, District -Pratapgarh has to be given effect to under law.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that in accordance with law settled by the Apex Court, registration of the family settlement was required unless a pleading was to the effect that the family settlement was oral. The family settlement, which was relied upon by the appellant was written and unregistered family settlement, therefore, the same could not have been placed any reliance. Apart from it, it has also been submitted that the said family settlement was not found to be a valid family settlement in Suit No. 4 of 1985 and the appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed. The said finding has attained finality and has not been challenged in any court. In the present case, the prayer for injunction cannot be granted as the family settlement is legally not sustainable under law and it was found that registration of the same was required under law. The finding recorded by the trial court in Suit No. 4 of 1985, which was filed by Mokhan Lal, is that the family settlement was a forged family settlement and the said finding has attained finality and cannot be questioned in permanent injunction. The trial court also while deciding the case found that the family settlement was not in accordance with law and has been prepared only for the purpose of the case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The substantial question of law, which has been argued and put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant does not deserve any consideration on account of the fact that in view of the settled legal position, if a written family settlement is relied upon, then registration of the same was required under law and unregistered family settlement, therefore, has rightly been ignored by the appellate court. The sole premise of the appellant is based on the aforesaid family settlement. Once it is found that the family settlement is not legally sustainable, the substantial question of law raised in the second appeal does not arise for consideration and is not made out.

The second appeal is accordingly dismissed.