Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant appellant-Mahi Pal Singh against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by Lal Singh plaintiff was decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge. 2. Lal Singh, plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the civil court judgment and decree dated 27.1.1995 in the civil suit titled Mool Chand v. Lal Singh, with regard to the suit land was illegal and void and seeking a declaration that Lal Singh, plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that aforesaid judgment and decree was based on fraud inasmuch as Mahi Pal Singh, defendant had succeeded in obtaining aforesaid decree against the plaintiff by playing fraud upon him. The said suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement, taking up various preliminary objections including the plea that the suit was barred under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and by the principles of res judicata. On merits it was alleged that the plaintiff had suffered the aforesaid decree dated 27.1.1995 out of love and affection on account of services render by the defendant and that the said civil court decree was perfectly legal and valid. It was alleged that the plaintiff had given the suit land to the defendant as owner and had handed over the actual physical possession thereof to him and as such defendant was owner in possession of the suit land. Various issues were framed. Both sides led evidence. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding the earlier civil court decree dated 27.1.1995 to be illegal and void and declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land. The appeal filed by Mahi Pal Singh, defendant was dismissed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge upholding the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, Mahi Pal Singh, defendant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 3. Notice of motion was issued and records were requisitioned. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. Distt. Judge upholding the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, Mahi Pal Singh, defendant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 3. Notice of motion was issued and records were requisitioned. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant appellant submitted before me that Lal Singh, plaintiff was debarred from challenging the civil court decree dated 27.1.1995 by way of present suit, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Parveen Kumar v. Shiv Ram Alias Sheo Ram and Ors., (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 312. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted before me that both the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and had rightly held civil court decree dated 27.1.1995 to be illegal and void and that the plaintiff was competent to file the present suit since the earlier civil court decree could not be passed as there was no inter se relationship between the parties and there would be no question of plaintiff giving the suit land to the defendant in a family settlement and even otherwise such a civil court decree would require registration, It was further submitted that the law laid down by this Court in Parveen Kumars case (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and pursuing the record, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Leaned Addl. Distt. Judge, while dismissing the appeal of Mahi Pal Singh,. defendant found it as a fact that since there was no relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff could not have given the suit land to the defendant in a family settlement and that the defendant did not have a pre-existing right in the suit property and as such the disputed civil court decree, which was a consent decree, would not confer any title upon the defendant without getting the said decree registered in accordance with law. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 559 (S.C.). Reliance was placed on the law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 559 (S.C.). It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the defendant appellant that the plaintiff and the defendant are not related to each other in any way. That being so, in my opinion, the plaintiff could not have given the suit land to the defendant by way of a family settlement. In fact, it appears that the plaintiff had tried to transfer the suit land to the defendant in the form of civil Court decree in order to avoid the payment of necessary stamp duty and registration charges. In my opinion, such a transaction would not confer any title upon the defendant. No person can be allowed to circumvent the law and to cause loss to the state exchequer by getting the ownership transferred without getting the sale deed executed and registered in accordance with law. In my opinion, both the Courts below were perfectly justified in holding that in the absence of registration, the civil Court decree dated 27.1.1995 would not confer any title upon the defendant appellant Mahi Pal Singh. 7. So far as the authority (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 312 (supra) is concerned, in my opinion, the law laid down in this authority would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the reported case one Jhutha Ram had suffered a consent decree in favour of his nephew Krishan Chand @ Kishan Lal. Subsequently, Kishan Chand suffered another consent decree in respect of 2/3rd share of the land in favour of Shiv Ram, Bhani Sahai and Ramesh Chand. Subsequently, Jhutha Ram filed a suit in the year 1998 for declaration that the consent decree suffered by him in favour of Kishan Chand was null and void. Kishan Chand, defendant admitted the allegations of Jhutha Ram in respect of legality of the said civil Court decree. However, the suit was contested by Shiv Ram alleging that Jhutha Ram had filed the suit in collusion with Kishan Chand. Both the courts below dismissed the suit. The Regular Second Appeal filed in this court was also dismissed. In my opinion, the law laid down in this authority would have no application to the facts of present case and the defendant appellant cannot take any benefit from this authority. 8. Both the courts below dismissed the suit. The Regular Second Appeal filed in this court was also dismissed. In my opinion, the law laid down in this authority would have no application to the facts of present case and the defendant appellant cannot take any benefit from this authority. 8. As referred to above, Lal Singh, plaintiff and Mahi Pal Singh, defendant were not related to each other in any manner. It was under those circumstances that both the courts below had held that no title would pass to the defendant in respect of suit property on the basis of alleged family settlement especially when the civil court decree which was a collusive decree was not registered. In my opinion, both the courts below were perfectly justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and declaring the civil court decree dated 27.1.1995 to be null and void and no fault could be found with the same. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed.