JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J.: - The present appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, Chanan Devi against the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein the suit for declaration was dismissed. 2. The suit was filed seeking declaration that the plaintiff was joint owner of 1/3 share in the land bearing khewat/khatauni No.10/10, khasra No.39, 50, 78, 145 and 321/57, measuring 9B-18B, situated in Village Manakpur Devilal, 1/3 share in the land bearing khewat/khatauni No.16/36, khasra No.98 (8B-111B0, situated in Village Ferozpur, ½ share in land bearing khewat/khatauni No.3/3, 4 and 5, khasra No.148, 138 min, 143 min, 149 min, 138 min, 149 min, total measuring 43B-17B and khewat/khatauni No.7/9, khasra No.137, 144, 145, 146, 150, total measuring 9B-16B, situated in Village Abdullapur and 1/3rd share in house situated in abadi deh of Village Manakpur Devilal, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula on the basis of the registered will dated 21.09.1987 and that the judgment and decree dated 01.06.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.119 of 1992 titled as Smt. Bachni Vs. Kapuria along with mutation No.545 of Village Manakpur Devilal, Mutation No.447 of Village Ferozpur and Mutation No.1002 of Village Abdullapur being illegal, null and void and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the suit land in any manner. 3. The case of the plaintiff was that Sh.Kapuria was her father and that of defendant No.2, Smt.Lachhmi and the owner of the suit property. Sh.Kapuria had married the mother of the plaintiff, Smt.Achhro and during her lifetime, Sh.Kapuria married defendant No.1, Smt.Bachni, since Achhro could not give birth to a male child, from whom, defendant No.2 was born. It was contended that the father of the plaintiff, during his lifetime, voluntarily, with free and disposing mind, had executed a Will dated 21.09.1987 and got the same registered as document No.95 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kalka on 22.09.1987 vide which, he bequeathed his moveable and immoveable properties in favour of the plaintiff and defendants in equal shares, i.e., 1/3rd share each. It is further contended that the plaintiff is the joint owner in possession of 1/3rd share in the suit property. Sh.Kapuria died on 28.09.1997, i.e., about 10 years after the execution of the will. It is further contended that the plaintiff is the joint owner in possession of 1/3rd share in the suit property. Sh.Kapuria died on 28.09.1997, i.e., about 10 years after the execution of the will. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 got executed a decree in her favour in respect of the suit property vide a collusive judgment and decree dated 01.06.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.119 of 04.04.1992 and on that basis, the mutation had been sanctioned in her favour. Accordingly, it was contended that the decree was liable to be set aside because the suit property was ancestral property of Sh.Kapuria and that he was not in a fit and disposing mind in the year 1992 and was confined to bed being more than 80 years of age and that the decree had not been registered. 4. The suit was contested on the ground that defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff was not in possession of any part of the suit property and that the suit was not maintainable. The locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit not being under limitation was also set up and she was estopped to challenge the same by her own act and conduct since the decree was within her knowledge. It was also pleaded that Kapuria had married the mother of Achhro who had died more than 50 years back and that it was wrong that Kapuria had married defendant No.1 as she could not give birth to a male child. The relationship of defendant No.2, being the daughter of Kapuria from Bachni Devi was admitted. The will was pleaded to be a forged document and not binding upon the defendants and in view of the decree passed in favour of defendant No.1, the validity of the will ceased to exist as Kapuria had no property at the time of his death and the will had become meaningless and a waste paper. The mutation which had been entered on the basis of a decree dated 01.06.1992 was admitted and that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the said mutation. The property in the hands of Kapuria was denied to be ancestral property and was alleged to be self-acquired property. The mutation which had been entered on the basis of a decree dated 01.06.1992 was admitted and that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the said mutation. The property in the hands of Kapuria was denied to be ancestral property and was alleged to be self-acquired property. The allegation that Kapuria was not in a position to move from the bed was also denied and it was held that he was in a good health at the time of passing of the decree and the decree did not require registration as there was no law to get the decree registered in 1992. It was alleged that since Kapuria died on 28.09.1997, the question of the plaintiff visiting the Patwari in the last month of 1998 did not arise and the decree was passed with her consent and knowledge. 5. Replication was filed to the written statement wherein the averments in the written statement were controverted and it was alleged that the decree did not require registration and that it did not create new rights in favour of defendant No.1 as the suit property was worth more than Rs.100/-. 6. On the basis of the said pleadings, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether Plaintiff is joint owner in possession of the suit land mentioned in the head note of the plaint as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1992 passed in civil suit no.119 of 1992 and mutation nos.545, 447 and 1002 of 1992 are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPD 3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged in Para No.1 of the Preliminary Objections of the written statement? OPD 5. Whether Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 6. Whether suit is time barred? OPD 7. Whether the Plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 7A. Whether proper court fee has not been affixed on the Plaint? OPD 8. Relief. 7. The plaintiff examined as many as 4 witnesses and the defendant examined 6 witnesses. OPD 6. Whether suit is time barred? OPD 7. Whether the Plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 7A. Whether proper court fee has not been affixed on the Plaint? OPD 8. Relief. 7. The plaintiff examined as many as 4 witnesses and the defendant examined 6 witnesses. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have set up the case that Kapuria was not in a fit state of mind to have approached the Court to suffer a consent decree but no cogent evidence of the plaintiff has been brought on record to prove the said allegation, and on the other side, the defendant had produced Sh.Hari Ram Jassi, Advocate as DW5 who identified the signatures on the written statement filed in the civil suit in which the judgment and decree dated 01.06.1992 had been passed and he identified the signatures of Kapuria on the written statement (Exhibit DW5/1) and the statement of Kapuria(Exhibit DW7). It was also held that since defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the wife and daughter of Kapuria respectively and defendant Nos.1 & 2 had pre-existing right in the property of Kapuria, therefore, the consent decree did not require registration by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amteshwar Anand Vs. Virender Mohan Singh & others 2006(1) All India Land Law Reporter 465. The fact that Kapuria remained alive from 1992 to 1997, i.e., for more than 5 years was also taken into consideration by the trial Court to hold that Kapuria had no intention for undoing his act. The fact that the decree was not challenged within 3 years of having been passed, by the plaintiff and in view of the fact that she did not step into the witness-box and only her power of attorney appeared and being barred by limitation having been filed on 17.09.1998, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2007 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Panchkula. The appeal filed by the plaintiff also met the same fate on 04.12.2008 by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula. 8. The appeal filed by the plaintiff also met the same fate on 04.12.2008 by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula. 8. Accordingly, the present regular second appeal has been filed and various submissions have been made on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants that defendant No.1, being the second wife, was not entitled to inherit the property and had no pre-existing right in the property which was ancestral property as per the case of the plaintiff-appellants and self-acquired as per the case of the defendant-respondent herself and the decree thus needed to be registered as the rights have been created for the first time. It was also alleged that the decree in question did not pertain to the house situated in the Village Manakpur Devilal, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula and the suit for declaration on the basis of title was always maintainable. The arguments, though attractive, are without any basis since while issuing notice of motion on 17.05.2010, order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench whereby the right of the appellant was only restricted to the house in question. The same is reproduced below: “Present: Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for the appellants. * * * Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that consent decree dated 01.06.1992 was not validly suffered by Kapuria as name of the Court and date in the written statement, on the basis of which the consent decree was passed, were changed by cutting. The contention cannot be accepted. Both the courts below have appreciated the evidence on record and have come to the concurrent finding against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that consent decree dated 01.06.1992 did not pertain to house, which is also in dispute in the instant suit, and the said consent decree pertains to only agricultural land in suit and therefore, the appellants will have share in the suit house in spite of the consent decree dated 01.06.1992. Notice of motion, limited to claim of share by the appellants in the suit house, be issued to respondent for 19.08.2010. Records of the courts below be also requisitioned for the date fixed.” 9. Keeping in view that notice of motion was issued only on the limited point regarding the house in question, counsel for the plaintiffappellants cannot be permitted to re-open the settled dispute of the agricultural land between the parties. Records of the courts below be also requisitioned for the date fixed.” 9. Keeping in view that notice of motion was issued only on the limited point regarding the house in question, counsel for the plaintiffappellants cannot be permitted to re-open the settled dispute of the agricultural land between the parties. Another legal hurdle in the way of the plaintiff-appellants is that the suit is for declaration and there is no relief of possession, and therefore, the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 would come into play. Counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra & another AIR 1993 (SC) 957 & Mehar Chand Das v. Lal Babu Siddique & others AIR 2007 (SC) 1499 to contend that once admittedly the plaintiff was not in a possession, the suit for declaration only was not maintainable as the plaintiff had failed to claim possession and admittedly was not in possession of the suit property. 10. On the issue of the house not being covered as being part of the consent decree, it was argued on behalf of the counsel for the defendant that no such plea was raised in the pleadings and the counsel for the defendantrespondent could not, now, in a regular second appeal, raise a plea for which no foundation had been made and the parties could not be taken by surprise. There is no dispute regarding this issue as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal & others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 652] : AIR 2009 SC 1103 and followed by this Court in DHBVN Vs. M/s Ajit Singh Shetty 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 429 that a question which has not been raised and pleaded earlier, cannot be raised in a regular second appeal. M/s Ajit Singh Shetty 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 429 that a question which has not been raised and pleaded earlier, cannot be raised in a regular second appeal. It was also contended that as per the will, the house was to go to Bachni, defendant No.1 and it is the case of the plaintiff-appellants themselves that there was a registered will in their favour which has been exhibited as Exhibit PW2/A. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has tried to justify that since the will did not stand proved and the Courts below have not held the same to be proved, therefore, the stipulation in the will that the residential house should go to Bachni is of no consequence. In the present case, it has been found by the Courts below that Chanan Devi, plainiff-appellant herself did not step in the witness box but her son, Gobind singh, PW1 appeared as the general power of attorney and admitted that the mother of the plaintiffappellant, viz., Achhro, had died immediately after the partition and that her daughter, Chanan Devi, the mother of PW1 had not resided in Village Manakpur with Kapuria. It has also come in evidence that Chanan Devi had just gone to Village Manakpur for 2/4 days about 10 years ago and never come in the possession of the house and land owned by Kapuria whereas Bachni, defendant No.1 had been using the land and house of Kapuria as owner in possession, and therefore, it shows that Chanan Devi had snapped all links with her father and was not on visiting terms for the last 10 years prior to his death, and accordingly, he executed the consent decree in favour of defendant Nos.1 & 2, his second wife and daughter from the second wife and there is no fraud or misrepresentation in the compromise decree. 11. Once the consent decree was passed on a compromise of a family arrangement, then this Court has followed the view that such family arrangements should not be disturbed keeping in view the binding principles laid down by the Apex Court in Kale & others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & others AIR 1976 (SC) 807, Krishna Bihari Lal Vs. Gulab Chand AIR 1971 (SC) 1041 & S. Shanmugam Pillai Vs. K. Shanmugam Pillai AIR 1972 (SC) 2069. The said judgments have been recently followed by this Court in Raj Kali Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & others AIR 1976 (SC) 807, Krishna Bihari Lal Vs. Gulab Chand AIR 1971 (SC) 1041 & S. Shanmugam Pillai Vs. K. Shanmugam Pillai AIR 1972 (SC) 2069. The said judgments have been recently followed by this Court in Raj Kali Vs. Jitender & others, [2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 125 : 2011(2) Marriage L.J. 309] : 2010 (2) PLR 258 wherein it has been held that the Courts have leaned in favour of up-holding the family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on trivial or technical grounds. The principles of estoppel will also apply to the plaintiff-appellants as they themselves have set up the registered will dated 21.09.1987 wherein the house in dispute has been left to Bachni. This Court, in the case of Rajinder Singh Vs. Joginder Singh & others 2002(3) PLR 846 has held that a party, setting up a document, cannot challenge it on the ground that it is not admissible on evidence for want of registration. It was held that once the party itself had set up the document, then he could not be permitted to back-out on the ground that it was not registered. The said principle would also apply in the present case against the plaintiffappellants as they cannot contend that will has not been proved once they had set up the will itself which is a registered will and the plaintiffappellants themselves have proved the same by examining the officials from the registering authority, PW2, Smt.Sashi Bala and also examined Sh.Hari Om Goyal, the scribe as PW4. The said will, though has not been held to be a valid will duly proved by the Courts below as they did not discuss the said issue in view of the fact that a consent decree was passed subsequently and during the lifetime of Kapuria, the land was transferred in favour of defendant, Bachni by the consent decree. But the plaintiff-appellant herself filed an application to lead secondary evidence in favour of the registered sale deed on 13.02.2003 and the said application was allowed and the certified copies were allowed to be placed on record as Mark ‘A’ and PW2, Sashi Bala, the Registration Clerk appeared along with the record of the will, and accordingly, it was exhibited as PW2/A and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the registered will has not been proved. The judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Nachhattar Singh & another Vs. Jangir Singh & others 2005(2) PLR 212 relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff-appellants is of no help as it pertains to the issue where a consent decree was passed in favour of persons who were not members of the family, and accordingly, such consent decree was held to be not passing any title for want of compulsory registration. 12. In the present case, the defendants are the wife and daughter and the consent decree in question was inter se between husband and wife, and therefore, it cannot be said that defendant No.1 had no pre-existing rights in the property in question. As mentioned above, a perusal of the will shows that the house would go to Bachni and the other baras of the village would go to the daughters equitably. The present suit only pertains to the agricultural land and house and there is no mention of any claim of baras and the principle of estoppel would apply also to the plaintiff and she cannot back out of the averments of the will once she herself had set up the will. Sh.Hari Om Goyal, Advocate of the scribe of the will has been examined by the plaintiff-appellants as PW4 and the Courts below have also held that the suit is barred by limitation in view of the fact that there is no specific averment as to when they had the date of knowledge of the decree and that the same was passed on 01.06.1992 and the suit was filed on 17.09.1998. The relationship of the parties has also been discussed to hold that they were not on visiting terms and the son of the plaintiff-appellant had not visited the deceased for the last 10 years prior to his death and the plaintiff-appellant herself did not come to the Court to depose about the facts. In such background, if Kapuria had transferred the land by way of consent decree after executing the will in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, no fault can be found with the decison of the Courts below as he himself was no longer the owner of the land once he had voluntarily suffered the consent decree. 13. In such background, if Kapuria had transferred the land by way of consent decree after executing the will in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, no fault can be found with the decison of the Courts below as he himself was no longer the owner of the land once he had voluntarily suffered the consent decree. 13. Keeping in view the above concurrent findings of fact and in view of the notice of motion orders restricting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant only to the extent of the residential house, the suit being barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the plaintiff-appellant herself setting up the will in which the house was to go to defendant No.1 would go on to show that there is no perversity in the judgments of the Courts below and no question of law arises to warrant interference in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ------------------