ORDER V.M. Jain, J. - This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgments and decrees of the courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by him was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration for getting judgment and decree dated 5.10.1990 passed by the civil court declared as illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendants, alleging therein that the plaintiff had suffered the said decree in favour of defendants voluntarily and that plaintiff was bound by the said consent decree dated 5.10.1990 and that the same was perfectly valid and legal. After hearing both sides, learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge. Now he has filed this second appeal in this court. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted before me that the civil court decree, allegedly suffered by him in favour of defendants, required registration and since it was not got registered, plaintiff was entitled to the declaration sought for. However, I find no force in this submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. Both the court below have found it as a fact that the plaintiff himself had suffered the decree voluntarily and the said decree was not result of any fraud, mis- representation etc. So far as the legality of the decree, on the ground that it required registration, in my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could not be said that the said decree required registration. At the time when earlier decree was passed, the plaintiff had admitted the family settlement which had earlier taken place between the parties and thus the present defendants had a pre-existing right at the time of the filing of the earlier suit. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, it could not be said that the said decree required registration. The authority Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and others, AIR 1996 SC 196, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, it could not be said that the said decree required registration. The authority Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and others, AIR 1996 SC 196, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the reported case, declaratory decree was passed to the effect that the plaintiff will be owners in possession "from today". It was under these circumstances that it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that said decree required registration as the said decree had given declaration in praesenti. However, as referred to above, in the present case, pre-existing rights of the defendants were recognised in the earlier decree. Furthermore, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the case reported as S. Noordeen v. V.S. Thiru Venkita Reddiar and others, AIR 1996 SC 1293 and Bachan Singh v. Kartar Singh, 2002(1) PLJ 59, in my opinion, it could not be said that the decree in question, required registration. I am further of the opinion that the courts below had rightly found that the plaintiff was bound by the earlier decree suffered by him. I find no illegality in the judgments of the courts below nor any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.