The Apex Court, while hearing a suit, observed that in case of a compromise decree w.r.t. to a land, which did not form part of subject-matter of a suit but part of family settlement, does not mandatorily require registration.
The court in the case of Ripudaman Singh v Tikka Maheshwar Chand observed that such a compromise decree, entered between the parties in respect of a land which was not the subject matter of the suit, would be valid and a lawful settlement.
As per the procedural history, the High Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the said land, even though being addressed as the subject-matter of the suit, was not the subject-matter and thus ruled that the decree compulsorily required registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act.
Aggrieved by the ruling of High Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and raised an issue- whether compromise decree relating to such land which though not being a subject-matter, was a part of settlement between family members, required registration under said section of Registration Act.
Section 17(1) of the Act provides for a list of documents which require registration. However, Section 17(2)(vi) clarified that the requirement of compulsory registration was not applicable on decrees and Court orders except the ones provided for.
The court while deciding the issue, relied on its verdict in the case of Bhoop Singh v Ram Singh Major, wherein it was held that a decree or order which included compromise decree that created new rights, title, or interest in favour of the owner of the immovable property which valued Rs. 100/- or more, required compulsory registration.
The court also observed that the instant case did not revolve around any pre-existing right, but one which had been created by the decree alone. The court, therefore, allowed the appeal.
Leave a Reply