Registration Act, 1908 – s. 17 – Compromise decree – If requires registration – Suit filed in 1984, by appellant’s father inter alia for declaration in respect of a 7 biswa area of survey no. 203 which was attached in east with their land bearing survey No. 223 – They were in possession of suit land, which was recorded in the names of defendant – Compromise decree dtd. 04.10.85 was passed declaring their right on 7 biswa area and it was declared that remaining land belonged to defendant – Suit filed in 1998 by respondent nos.1 & 2 against the appellants for perpetual injunction in respect of two areas bearing survey no. 203 – Respondent nos. 1 & 2 sold the said areas to respondent nos. 4-7 and they were impleaded as plaintiffs – During evidence, one of the appellant tried to exhibit the decree dtd. 04.10.85 – Plaintiff ’s objection to the admissibility of decree was that decree being not registered cannot be accepted in evidence – Civil Judge held that decree was required to be registered, hence it was not admissible – High Court dismissed appellant’s writ petition holding that decree was required to be registered – Held: By virtue of sub-sec.(2)(vi) of s.17, any decree or order of a Court does not require registration – In subclause (vi) of sub-sec.(2), one category is excepted from subclause(vi), i.e., a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject -matter of the suit or proceeding – By conjointly reading s. 17(1)(b) & s. 17(2)(vi), it is clear that a compromise decree comprising immovable property other than which is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding requires registration, although any decree or order of a Court is exempted from registration by virtue of s. 17(2)(vi) – Decree dated 04.10.85 was with regard to property, which was subject matter of the suit, hence not covered by exclusionary clause of s.17(2)(vi) and present case is covered by the main exception u/s.17(2)(vi), i.e., “any decree or order of a Court” – Compromise decree dated 04.10.85 did not require registration – Order of the Civil Judge and the judgment of High Court is set aside – Compromise decree dtd. 04.10.85 be exhibited by trial court – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – s. 2(14). Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under Section 17(1)(b), non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property requires registration. The word “instrument” is not defined in Registration Act, but is defined in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by Section 2(14). A compromise decree passed by a Court would ordinarily be covered by Section 17(1)(b) but sub-section(2) of Section 17 provides for an exception for any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. Thus, by virtue of sub-section (2)(vi) of Section 17 any decree or order of a Court does not require registration. In sub-clause (vi) of subsection (2), one category is excepted from sub-clause (vi), i.e., a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. Thus, by conjointly reading Section 17(1)(b) and Section 17(2)(vi), it is clear that a compromise decree comprising immovable property other than which is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding requires registration, although any decree or order of a Court is exempted from registration by virtue of Section 17(2)(vi). A copy of the decree passed in Suit No. 250-A of 1984 was brought on record as Annexure P-2, which indicates that decree dated 04.10.1985 was passed by the Court for the property, which was subject matter of the suit. Thus, the exclusionary clause in Section 17(2)(vi) is not applicable and the compromise decree dated 04.10.1985 was not required to be registered on plain reading of Section 17(2)(vi). [Paras 5, 6][654 G-H; 655 A-E]
1.2 In facts of the present case, the decree dated 04.10.1985 was with regard to property, which was subject matter of the suit, hence not covered by exclusionary clause of Section 17(2)(vi) and present case is covered by the main exception crafted in Section 17(2)(vi), i.e., “any decree or order of a Court”. When registration of an instrument as required by Section 17(1)(b) is specifically excluded by Section 17(2)(vi) by providing that nothing in clause (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to any decree or order of the Court, the compromise decree dated 04.10.1985 did not require registration and learned Civil Judge as well as the High Court erred in holding otherwise. The order of the Civil Judge as well as the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The compromise decree dated 04.10.1985 be exhibited by the trial court. [Para 14][660 C-E]
Som Dev and Others v. Rati Ram and Another (2006)
10 SCC 788 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 778 – relied on. Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others (1995) 5 SCC 709 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 466 – held inapplicable. Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another (2014) 1 SCC 669; Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others v. Manjit Kaur and Others (2019) 8 SCC
729 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.