Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and while I agree with his conclusion I would venture to add a few words of my own, especially since the question argued is bereft of authority in. this court and is important from the point of view of the construction of the Registration Act. Is the compromise decree charging properties specifically mentioned in the schedule thereto but which were not in terms the subject-matter of the litigation, compulsorily registrable under Section 17(I) of the Registration Act? That it is a document which purports to create right, title and interest in immoveable property of the value of more than Rs. 100 has not been questioned; and but for the fact that Section 17(2) Clause (vi) as it originally stood exempted a decree or order of court from being compulsorily registered, the decree in question would, of necessity, be registrable. By the amendment made by Section 10 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, the words "except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise & comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding" have been added to Clause (vi) of Section 17(2). The result of this amendment is to make a decree passed on a compromise comprising immoveable property other than' that which is the subject-matter of the suit compulsorily registrable. Do the immoveable properties over which a charge has been created, when the provisions regarding instalment. payment are not fulfilled, form the subject matter of the suit?

Apparently, opposing views on a topic similar to the one in question have been expressed by Venkatasubba Rao J. and Venkataramana Rao J. in Govindaswami v. Rasu, 58 Mad. 781 and 'Ramayya v. Rangaraju', (1938)-1 Mad LJ 325 respectively. In the earlier case the question arose in the following way. Pending a suit) for the recovery of a sum of money, the plaintiff got attached before judgment certain properties belonging to the defendant and later on the parties entered into a compromise and a decree was made embodying the terms. The compromise decree provided for the payment of the amount claimed in three months and created a charge for the sum decreed over the properties that had already been attached. In subsequent proceedings the question raised was whether the properties which were attached before judgment and became incorporated in the compromise decree with a charge being impressed upon the same, are the subject-matter of the suit or not. The learned Judge was of opinion that an application for attachment was a "proceeding" within the meaning of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act and therefore the attached properties must be deemed to have been the "subject-matter" of a suit or "proceeding." This decision does not in so many terms say that even though the properties were not originally included In the plaint or any relief claimed against them at the time the suit was filed, by subsequent action, if the parties wished to impress upon such properties a relief which was not originally asked for, such properties could be said to be the subject-matter of the suit Reliance was placed on this decision by Mr. R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar for the respondent that in order to understand the implication of the term "subject-matter of the suit" what is finally imparted by the decree should be the guiding factor and not on what the plaintiff intended originally to fasten his claim. It seems to me that the construction that is sought to be put on this decision is a somewhat far-fetched one.

On the other hand, Venkataramana Rao J.

decided a case somewhat on the same lines as
the present one.    See Ramayya   v.   Rangaraju,
(1938)    1-Mad.   L.  J.   325.    Where   a   plaintiff
' filed a suit on a promissory note executed by
". a Hindu father against the executant and his

undivided sons claiming a decree against the father personally & against the sons by a decree against the assets of the family, there was a compromise by which the defendants were directed to pay the amount decreed in two instalments and as security for the due payment of the said sum a charge was made on certain properties of the family. The question arose whether such a compromise decree was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2) Clause (vi) of the Registration Act, because it comprised immovable property other than that which was the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. The learned Judge held that the "subject-matter" of the suit in the clause contemplates specific Immovable property which should have been the subject-matter of the litigation and that there must be a claim or right in, or to, the specific immovable property asserted in the litigation and the relief sought in respect thereof. The prayer for a decree against the assets of the joint family did not make any item of the joint family property the subject-matter of the suit. I am in respectful agreement with this view. The contention of Mr. R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar that the compromise decree in question is not compulsorily registrable cannot therefore be accepted.

2. If the compromise decree is compulsorily registrable what then is the venue of registration? The scheme of the Registration Act as embodied in Part III comprising Sections 17 to 22 deals with what are registrable documents and what are not. Part V relating to Sections 28 to 31 deals with the place or venue of registration. Section 28 is a general section which lays down the place for registering documents relating to land and what is stated therein is that save as otherwise provided in that Part, every document mentioned in Section 17, Sub-section (1), clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and Section 17, Sub-section (2), in so far as such document affects immoveable property, shall be presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate. By the amendment of Clause (vi) of Sub-section (2) of Section 17 which is in the nature of an exception, (the exception has already been noted) a compromise decree comprising immoveable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding would come within the compulsorily registrable documents mentioned in Section 17, Sub-section (1). Clause (b). Therefore at first sight, but for the saving clause in the first portion of the section a compromise decree like the one we have to deal with ought to be registered under Section 28. Section 29 is in the nature of an amplification of Section 28 and is covered by the saving clause of Section 28. Sub-section (1) of Section 29 exempts a copy of a decree or order from its operation and the registration of the copy of decree or order is dealt with in Sub-section (2).