Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G. Sanjeeva Reddy (Died By Lrs. 2 To 5) vs Indukuru Lakshmamma And Others on 27 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(3)ALD522, 2001(4)ALT490
Author: Vaman Rao
Bench: Vaman Rao
ORDER
1. Heard both sides.
2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri dated 6-8-1999 passed in OS No.341 of 1987 under which, during the course of trial, the learned Junior Civil Judge rejected the objection to admission of a compromise deed entered into between the parties in a previous suit in OS No.82 of 1965 dated 6-1-1968 on the ground that it is inadmissible in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act on the ground that the compromise decree comprises the property, which is not the subject-matter of the suit.
3. The objection with regard to admissibility of this compromise decree in OS No.82 of 1965 was that suit was for specific performance of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The vendor is said to have already sold that property in favour of defendant No.2 in that suit. Under the comprise decree, it was provided that the purchaser from the vendor, defendant No.2 therein, shall be entitled to enjoy the property absolutely. Obviously, in view of this understanding, the suit for specific performance of the plaintiff was to be dismissed.
4. The contention raised was that inasmuch as in a suit for specific performance, the only question that falls for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for specific performance or not, any compromise not related to the question of specific performance will fall outside the purview of the explanation under Section 17(2) of the Registration Act in respect of documents requiring registration. This contention is based on clause (6) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, which reads as follows:
"17. Documents of which Registration is Compulsory :--(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the properly 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 (XX of 1866), or the Registration Act, 1871 (VII of 1871), or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 (III of 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) xxx
(d)xxx
(e)xxx Provided that the State Government may, by order published in the official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any leases 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. (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (1) applies to-
(i) any composition deed;
(ii) xxx (iii) xxx (iv) xxx
(v) xxx
(vi) 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 or the suit or proceeding; or
(vii) xxx
(viii) xxx
(ix) xxx
(x) xxx
(xi) xxx
(xii) xxx (3)xxxx"
5. In this case, what is sought to be admitted into evidence is the decree of the Court passed on a compromise. Sul-section (2) of Section 17 postulates that nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to the documents covered by various clauses in the said sub-section (2). In other words, documents, mentioned under sub-section (2) would not be compulsorily registerable. In the documents under clause (vi) of sub-section (2) , a decree or order of a Court has been included as one of those documents which are not compulsorily required to be registered notwithstanding the provisions under clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section J 7 of the Registration Act, 1908.
6. However, clause (vi) of subsection (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 restricts its application to only such compromise decrees or orders of the Court which are confined to the subject-matter of the suit. It specifically excludes from its ambit, any compromise decree or order of a Court which comprises immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings. Thus, exemption from compulsory registration to compromise decrees or orders of the Court, does net extend to compromise decrees or orders which comprise and incorporate any arrangement agreed between the parties in respect of properties which are not the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings.
7. In this case, the compromise decree in OS No.82 of 1965 dealt with the same property which was the subject-matter of the suit. It is in respect of the same property regarding which the relief for specific performance of contract of sale was sought to be enforced in the suit. The resistance to the plea for the relief of specific performance was that defendant No.2 in the suit had already acquired title to it by earlier purchase. It was this dispute which was compromised and compromise decree was passed which provided that the purchaser-defendant No.2 shall be entitled to enjoy the property absolutely. From this, it is obvious that the compromise decree in that case falls outside the purview of exception to clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Such compromise decree cannot be said to fall under the category of compromise decrees which are kept outside the purview in clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act which provides that in respect of compromise decrees, the provisions in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 shall not apply.
8. Thus, this compromise decree does not appear to be one which has been excepted from the application of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act inasmuch as the subject-matter of the compromise decree was not in respect of the property other than the subject-matter of the suit.
9. In the result, the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge is set aside. The document shall be admitted in evidence.
10. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed.