Registration of Compromise Decree not Required if the property is not the Subject Matter

Mohammade Yusuf and Ors. vs. Rajkumar and Ors. (05.02.2026 - SC) : MANU/SC/0128/2020

Case Note:
Civil - Compromise decree - Validity of registration - Sections 17, 17(1)(b), 17(2) and 17(2)(vi) of Registration Act, 1908 - Suit was filed by father of Appellant for declaration and injunction in respect of suit property - Compromise decree was passed in suit between parties - Thereafter, suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against Appellants for perpetual injunction in respect of two areas - During evidence of one of Appellants, he tried to exhibit decree passed in Civil Suit which was objected by Plaintiff - Plaintiff’s objection to admissibility of decree was that decree being not registered could not be accepted in evidence - Civil Judge took view that compromise decree was required to be registered as per provision of Section 17(1) (e) of Act, hence it was not admissible in evidence - Writ Petition was filed by Appellant challenging order of Civil Judge - High Court had dismissed writ petition taking view that decree was required to be registered - Hence, present appeal - Whether compromise decree was required to be registered under Section 17 of Act.

Facts:

A Suit was filed by the father of the Appellant for declaration and injunction in respect of suit property. A compromise decree was passed in the suit declaring the right of Plaintiff and Defendant. The Appellants, claimed to be in possession, continued to be in possession of the aforesaid area. A Suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the Appellants for perpetual injunction in respect of two areas. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sold the said two areas to Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and they were impleaded as Plaintiffs in the said suit. During evidence of one of the Appellants, he tried to exhibit the decree passed in Civil Suit which was objected by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s objection to the admissibility of the decree was that decree being not registered could not be accepted in evidence. Civil Judge took the view that decree was required to be registered as per provision of Section 17(1) (e) of the Registration Act, hence it was not admissible in evidence. A Writ Petition was filed by the Appellant challenging the order. The High Court by the impugned judgment had dismissed the writ petition taking the view that decree was required to be registered.

Held, while allowing the appeal:

(i) 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 Sub-section (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 was clear that a compromise decree comprising immovable property other than which was the subject matter of the suit or proceeding requires registration, although any decree or order of a Court was exempted from registration by virtue of Section 17(2)(vi). A copy of the decree passed in earlier suit had been brought on record which indicates that decree was passed by the Court for the property, which was subject matter of the suit. Thus, the exclusionary Clause in Section 17(2)(vi) was not applicable and the compromise decree was not required to be registered on plain reading of Section 17(2)(vi). [6]

(ii) The decree 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 was 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) was 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 did not require registration and Civil Judge as well as the High Court erred in holding otherwise. Thus, set aside the order of the Civil Judge as well as the judgment of the High Court. The compromise decree was directed to be exhibited by the trial court. [14]