MOHAMMADE YUSUF & ORS. versus RAJKUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 05-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
MOHAMMADE YUSUF & ORS.
v.
RAJKUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 05, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Registration Act, 1908 – s. 17 – Compromise decree – If
requires registration – Suit filed in 1984, by appellant’s father inter
alia for declaration in respect of a 7 biswa area of survey no. 203
which was attached in east with their land bearing survey No. 223
– They were in possession of suit land, which was recorded in the
names of defendant – Compromise decree dtd. 04.10.85 was passed
declaring their right on 7 biswa area and it was declared that
remaining land belonged to defendant – Suit filed in 1998 by
respondent nos.1 & 2 against the appellants for perpetual injunction
in respect of two areas bearing survey no. 203 – Respondent nos. 1
& 2 sold the said areas to respondent nos. 4-7 and they were
impleaded as plaintiffs – During evidence, one of the appellant
tried to exhibit the decree dtd. 04.10.85 – Plaintiff’s objection to
the admissibility of decree was that decree being not registered
cannot be accepted in evidence – Civil Judge held that decree was
required to be registered, hence it was not admissible – High Court
dismissed appellant’s writ petition holding that decree was required
to be registered – Held: By virtue of sub-sec.(2)(vi) of s.17, any
decree or order of a Court does not require registration – In sub-
clause (vi) of sub-sec.(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 – By conjointly
reading s. 17(1)(b) & s. 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
s. 17(2)(vi) – Decree dated 04.10.85 was with regard to property,
which was subject matter of the suit, hence not covered by
exclusionary clause of s.17(2)(vi) and present case is covered by
the main exception u/s.17(2)(vi), i.e., “any decree or order of a
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 649
649
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Court” – Compromise decree dated 04.10.85 did not require
registration – Order of the Civil Judge and the judgment of High
Court is set aside – Compromise decree dtd. 04.10.85 be exhibited
by trial court – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – s. 2(14).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under Section 17(1)(b), 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
requires registration. The word “instrument” is not defined in
Registration Act, but is defined in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by
Section 2(14). 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). A copy of the
decree passed in Suit No. 250-A of 1984 was brought on record
as Annexure P-2, which indicates that decree dated 04.10.1985
was passed by the Court for the property, which was subject matter
of the suit. Thus, the exclusionary clause in Section 17(2)(vi) is
not applicable and the compromise decree dated 04.10.1985 was
not required to be registered on plain reading of Section 17(2)(vi).
[Paras 5, 6][654 G-H; 655 A-E]
1.2 In facts of the present case, the d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.