The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that 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 does not require compulsory registration. (Ripudaman Singh vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand)
The bench observed that a compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and a legal settlement.
Facts of the case
The plaintiff has filed the present appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on whereby appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit for declaration challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings was dismissed.
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.
Section 17(1) provides the list of documents of which registration is compulsory. Section 17(2) (vi) clarifies that this compulsory registration is not applicable to 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.
Issue before the Court
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.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The court referring to the provisions of the Act and precedents in this regard observed:
"An aggrieved person can seek enforcement of family settlement in a suit for declaration wherein the family members have some semblance of right in property or any pre-existing right in the property. The family members could enter into settlement during the pendency of the proceedings before the Civil Court as well. Such settlement would be binding within the members of the family. If a document is sought to be enforced which is not recognized by a decree, the provision of clause (v) of sub-section 2 of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 would be applicable. However, where the decree has been passed in respect of family property, clause (vi) of sub-section 2 of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 would be applicable. The principle is based on the fact that family settlement only declares the rights which are already possessed by the parties."
The bench further taking note of the judgment in the Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, wherein it was held that decree or order including compromise decree creating new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of value of Rs.100/- or above is compulsory for registration. It was not the case any pre-existing right but right that has been created by the decree alone, the bench observed.
The court while allowing the appeal said, "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. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
