2009 (3) TMI 1068

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the parties and perused the record. 3. The appellants are the daughters of one Bhagwana. They along with one Shobha Ram filed Civil Suit No. 234 of 1982 against the respondents challenging the decree in Civil Suit No. 630 of 1980 regarding certain land and a house filed by Ram Singh against Bhagwana on the ground that the said suit was a collusive suit and hence the decree was illegal and void. Accordingly the prayer in Civil Suit No. 234 of 1982 filed by the appellants was to set aside the decree in Civil Suit No. 630 of 1980. The trial court on 31.5.1983 decreed Civil Suit No. 234 of 1982 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1980 in Civil Suit No. 630 of 1980 on the ground that the same was collusive. However, in the fir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the respondent. There was a family arrangement in which the disputed property fell exclusively to the respondent. 8. Since the consent decree dated 24.11.1980 had been held by the First Appellate Court to be not collusive, the High Court in our opinion rightly refused to interfere with that findings of fact. 9. It was then urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was violation of the Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. 10. In this connection, it may be noted that Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act states that "nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 applies to: any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immova....