Allahabad High Court
Amrit Lal vs Kamal Kant Awasthi @ Kamla Kant Awasthi ... on 19 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 9 of 2025
Amrit Lal
. Petitioner
Versus
Kamal Kant Awasthi @ Kamla Kant Awasthi
and another
.Opp. Parties
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Prashant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Prateek Tewari
Reserved: 11.09.2025
Pronounced: 19.09.2025
Court No.6
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
J U D G M E N T
1. Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Prateek Tewari, learned Counsel for the opposite party.
2. Considering the submission and after perusing the material on record, the delay as reported by the Stamp Reporting Section is condoned.
3. The present revision has been filed challenging an order dated 26.04.2025 whereby, the compromise application seeking a decree on the basis of compromise was rejected.
4. The facts in brief are that the revisionist had executed a sale deed in favour of the opposite party no.1-Kamal Kant Awasthi @ Kamla Kant Awasthi on 23.02.20210 for a sale consideration. It is stated that it was subsequently realized that the Manager and the other employees of the company committed forgery. Instead of land being Khasra No.818, it was mentioned as Khasra No.816 in the sale deed which came to the knowledge of the opposite party no.1 when he went to take possession. It is also stated that subsequently efforts were made for correction of the sale deed, however, the same could not be achieved and as such, an FIR No.0038 of 2023, under Sections 395, 406, 420, 427, 467, 468, 504 IPC, Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow was lodged on 02.02.2023. It is also stated that thereafter, the revisionist filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of cancellation of the sale deed before the Civil Judge, Lucknow, which was registered as Regular Suit No.1380 of 2022 and notices were issued. Subsequently, the parties to the suit, realizing the mistake, a written compromise was entered into in between the parties on 03.01.2025 (Annexure No.4 to the affidavit) and consequently, an application was moved under Order XXII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. for decreeing the suit on the basis of compromise, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 26.04.2025. While passing the impugned order, the trial court was of the view that in case, the parties were of the view that the sale deed was wrongly executed, it was open to the parties to execute another sale deed for the same purpose and the trial court relied upon the judgment of High Court of Madras in the case of M/s Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal:AIR 2011 MADRAS 66. The trial court also observed that the compromise seeks to be with intention of saving stamp duty and the intention to retransfer the immovable property back to the vendor, which clearly hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act.
5. The contention of the Counsel for the revisionist is that the order is bad in law as, the suit in question was neither barred by any law and thus, a compromise could have been entered into in between the parties, as was done. He further argues that the observations of the trial court that another sale deed could be executed is erroneous as the seller of the earlier sale deed had realized his mistake that he was not the owner of the property, which was sold through sale deed dated 23.02.2010 and realizing mistake, a compromise was entered and thus, the observations are wholly arbitrary. It is relevant to extract the observations of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of M/s Latif Estate Line India Ltd. (Supra), which is as under:
52. Now the question that falls for consideration is as to whether once a sale is made absolute by transfer of ownership of the property from the vendor to the purchaser, such transfer can be annulled or cancelled by the vendor by executing a deed of cancellation. This question came up for consideration before the four Judges of the Privy Council (Viscount Haldane, Lord Phillimore, Sir John Edge and Sir Robert Stout) in Md. Ihtishan Ali vs Jamna Prasad, AIR 1922 PC 56. The fact of that case was that one Ehsan Ali Khan, being in possession of a bazaar called Ehsaganj mortgaged it to one Sheo Prasad by a mortgage deed dated 9th November, 1873 and further encumbered it with charges in favour of the mortgagee. In the year 1882, the said Ehsan Ali sold the property, subject to the mortgage and charges to the appellants predecessors in title. Dispute arose with regard to the devolution of interest, and said Ehsan Ali cancelled the deed and retained his interest and that he, in fact, dealt with it subsequently by further charges in favour of the mortgagee and by professing to sell it over again to Wasi-uz-Zaman. While deciding the issue, His Lordship Lord Phillimore, speaking for the Bench, observed and held as under:- (page 58)
While making these comments, their Lordships reserve their opinion as to the value of a defence founded upon such a transaction as the defendants set up. Certainly in law, no title would pass under it, for immovable property of this value can only be transferred by a registered deed, and when a deed of sale has been once executed and registered, it can only be avoided by a subsequent registered transfer. Whether in some form of suit( not this one) between some parties any equitable relief could be got out of such a transaction, it is unnecessary to pronounce, for in their Lordships opinion it was not proved.
As to the alleged subsequent dealings by Ehsan Ali Khan with the property, they could not, if regarded as declarations in his own favour, be received in evidence on behalf of those claiming under him, any more than they could be received if he were himself the defendant. They could not be regarded as acts of ownership so as to prove adverse possession, because he never was in possession, the possession remaining in the mortgagee.
55. From the reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest that three conditions are requisite for the exercise of jurisdiction to cancel an instrument ie.,
(1) An instrument is avoidable against the plaintiff;
(2) The plaintiff may reasonably apprehend serious injury by the instrument being left or outstanding; and
(3) In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers it proper to grant this relief of preventive justice.
6. Even otherwise, the matter before the Civil Judge was for decreeing the suit on the basis of compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and could have been denied only on the grounds specified thereunder There is no material on record to suggest that the agreement based upon which the decree was sought was unlawful .Even if, the court was of the view that the same was being done for avoiding the payment of stamp duty, the course open for the court was to record the compromise and send a copy of the decree for registration before the Sub-Registrar of the area concerned. If the Sub-Registrar is of the view that the compromise entered requires payment of stamp duty, it is open for him to initiate proceedings for levying the stamp duty. It is also essential to note the mandate of Section 17, which is as under:
17. Documents of which registration is compulsory. - (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:-
(a) instruments of gift of immovable property;
(b) other 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;
(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and
(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;
(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates 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:
Provided that the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.
(1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.
(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to -
(i) any composition deed; or
(ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or
(iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or
(iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or
(v) any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A) not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or
(vi) any decree or order of a Court 2 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; or
(vii) any grant of immovable property by Government; or
(viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or
(ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or
(x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists, Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act;or
(xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or
(xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or
(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer.
Explanation.A document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.
(3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the 1st day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered.
7. On a plain reading of Section 17(b), it is clear that even the order of the court/ decree which extinguishes the rights, title or interest is required to be compulsorily registered, thus, the right course open for the Civil Judge was to decree the suit and send a copy of the decree for registration to the Sub-Registrar under Section 17. The Sub-Registrar, if deemed necessary, can take action for deficiency of stamp duty, if any, in accordance with law, on the said decree, which has been forwarded to him for registration compulsorily.
8. The view taken by means of the impugned order clearly cannot be justified, as such, the order impugned dated 26.04.2025 is quashed. The revision is allowed.
9. The matter is remanded with direction to the trial court to pass decree in terms of the observations made hereinabove and to send the same for registration under Section 17 to the Sub-Registrar of the area concerned.
Date:19.09.2025
akverma [Pankaj Bhatia, J.]
