The only question in the present appeal is whether a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members requires compulsory registration in terms of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. {Para 6}
7. We find that the judgment and decree passed by the High Court is
clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. The parties are
the sons of late Vijendra Singh. As an heir of deceased, the
appellant had a right in the estate left by the deceased. Therefore, it was not a new right being created for the first time when the parties entered into a compromise before the civil court but rather an pre-existing right in the property was recognized by way of settlement in court proceedings.
8. Though, the Gair Mumkin Land (Non-cultivable land) was not
subject-matter of the suit, but the compromise entered between
the parties before the learned Trial Court leading to decree on
3.11.1981 included such non-cultivable land. It is to be noted that
compromise decree can be passed even if the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise of satisfaction is not the same as the
subject-matter of the suit in terms of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
17. In view of enunciation of law in Bhoop Singh’s case, we find that
the judgment and decree of the High Court holding that the decree
requires compulsory registration is erroneous in law. The
compromise was between the two brothers consequent to death of their father and no right was being created in praesenti for the first time, thus not requiring compulsory registration.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2336 OF 2021
RIPUDAMAN SINGH Vs TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND
Dated: JULY 6, 2021.
Print Page