Karnataka High Court
Sri C N Mahesh vs Sri C K Nanjundaiah on 13 December, 2021
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7765/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SRI C. N. MAHESH
S/O NINGEGOWDA @ CHIKKONU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT CHANNAKEGOWDANADODDI
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
HANAKERE DAKHALE
MANDYA TALUK - 571 401
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESHA H E., ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SRI C K NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
PROP VIJAYANANDA MILITARY HOTEL
SUGAR FACTORY CIRCLE
MANDYA CITY - 571 401.
2. SMT JAYASHEELAMMA
W/O C K NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YAERS
1ST CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR
NEAR NURSING HOME
MANDYA - 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERESHA K., ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE IN R.A.NO.165/2006 DATED
9.8.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner and the respondents are parties to
the proceedings in R.A. No.165/2006 on the file of the
Additional District Judge, Mandya [for short, 'the
appellate Court']. The petitioner, who is the appellant,
has filed this petition impugning the appellate Court's
order dated 09.08.2016. The appellate Court by this
impugned order has rejected the respondents'
application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, for a direction to send the compromise
decree drawn in such proceedings for registration with
the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mandya under the
prvisions of the Registration Act, 1908 [for short, 'the
Registration Act']. The appellate Court, in rejecting the
application as aforesaid, has opined that the question of
registering the compromise decree does not arise
because such decree is not a final decree for partition
and there is no provision in law for registration of a
decree for declaration.
2. Though the parties have presently filed a
joint memo stating that they have agreed to approach
the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for registration of the
compromise decree and to assist each other in getting
the khata for the respective portions transferred, the
learned counsel for the parties rely upon a decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mohammede Yusuf and
Others v. Rajkumar and Others' reported in [2020] 10
SCC 264 to contend that the compromise decree would
not require registration in view of the provisions of
Section 17 of the Registration Act and the petition could
be disposed of with the necessary observations in this
regard so that the parties could avail their remedies
accordingly.
3. The parties to the appeal proceedings in R.A.
No.165/2006 have settled their rival claims to the
subject properties by way of a compromise which is
accepted by the appellate Court on 27.03.2010. The
parties, by this compromise, have settled their mutual
claims in properties that are subject matter of the suit
in O.S. No.236/1995 on the file of the Additional Civil
Judge [Sr. Dn.,], Mandya as also the suit in O.S.
No.218/1995 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Mandya. In fact, it is seen from the
records that to facilitate such compromise and
settlement of rival claims, some of the persons who are
parties to the proceedings in O.S. No.218/1995 are
impleaded in the subject appeal in R.A. No.165/2006.
4. One of the terms of the compromise in the
appeal in R.A. No.165/2006 is that with this settlement,
the parties shall seek disposal of the other suit in O.S.
No.218/1995. The relevant part of the compromise
petition dated 27.03.2010 reads as follows:
"F jÃw F ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀgÀ £ÀqÀÄªÉ EzÀÝ ©eÁdÓ¸ÉAiÀÄÆ
FzÁªÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAqÀåzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ¹«¯ï eÉqïÓ (»jAiÀÄ«¨sÁUÀ)
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C¸À®Ä zÁªÁ 218:95 gÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ EªÀgÀUÀ¼À
£ÀqÀÄªÉ §UɺÀj¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ FgÁf PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj C¸À®Ä zÁªÁ
218:95 gÀ°è ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹ D PÉù£À ªÁ¢ ZÀ£ÀßAPÉÃUËqÀ ¸ÀzÀj
zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 £Éà JzÀÄgÀÄ D¦Ã®ÄzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
»AzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EzÀÝgÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÉù£À G½zÀ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ".
5. After this compromise decree in R.A.
No.165/2006, the other suit in O.S. No.218/1995 is
disposed of by Judgment dated 14.03.2016. The civil
Court in this Judgment dated 14.03.2016 has recorded
in paragraph 21 that the suit as against all the
defendants except the defendant Nos.2-4 is dismissed in
view of the compromise inter se parties. It is as such
obvious that the parties to the proceedings in R.A.
No.165/2006 have settled their respective claims in two
immovable properties that are subject matter of the suit
in O.S. No.236/1995 and O.S. No.218/1995 by
common consensus, and consequent to this common
consensus, the suit in O.S. No.218/1995 is dismissed
insofar as these two subject properties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammede
Yusuf's case [supra] has held as follows:
"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 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)."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also finally held that
unless a decree is covered by the exception contained in
Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act [because it
includes a property that is not subject matter], every
decree of a court would be exempt from registration in
view of the exception carved out to the general rule
under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act.
7. In the present case, the compromise decree
in R.A. No.165/2006 is in respect of immovable
properties that are subject matter of two suits and
consequent to the compromise, the suit in O.S.
No.236/1995 is settled at the appellate stage in R.A.
No.165/2006 and the other suit in O.S. No.218/1995 is
later dismissed insofar as the subject properties and the
concerned defendants. Therefore, this Court must
opine that the compromise decree in R.A. No.165/2006
would not require registration under the provisions of
the Registration Act, and the parties must be at liberty
to seek change of revenue records to the respective
properties consequent to such decree without the
registration thereof.
The petition therefore, stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AN/-
