Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(f) of the Registration Act the assignment and transfer of the decree relating to immovable property of the value of Rs.

100/- and upwards is compulsorily registrable. Further it was held that the transfer of the right in a decree by way of assignment in immovable properties require stamp and registration and if there is a valid assignment of decree by operation of law, then the assignee is entitled to get the decree executed in his favour after issuing a notice to the transferors and the Judgment-Debtors. Further it was held that the non-compliance with provisio regarding notice under Order 21 Rule 16 C.P.C. renders all subsequent proceedings void. The above decision was also rendered in a case of specific performance relating to immovable property. Therefore, this court finds that the principles and AIR 2005 AP 524  the decision reported above is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also. No other decision or the principle laid down in any other case has been pointed out and produced by the respondents so as to reject or over- look the contentions raised by the petitioners herein or the decision reported in ‘A.I.R. 2005- Andhra Pradesh- Page 524’. Therefore, this court has no other go except to accept the principles laid down in the above decision.

8. We have heard Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. R. Ganesh, learned counsel for the assignee-respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, though served, is not appearing. We have perused the records, including the original records of the High Court and the Trial Court, which we called for.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: -

9. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior counsel, after drawing our attention to Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, as amended in 1929, contended that assignment of decree is compulsorily registrable when the decree purports or operates 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. According to the learned senior counsel, the Executing Court rightly relied upon the judgment of K. Bhaskaram (supra) wherein it was held that the assignment and transfer of the decree relating to immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards is compulsorily registrable and if it was unregistered and unstamped then there is no assignment of the decree in the eye of law.

 (e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates 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.”

26. If we analyze Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act on which the case of the appellant pivots, it will be clear that what this section prescribes is that registration is mandatory only for non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates 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. In this case, when the decree itself which is for specific performance does not create or purport to create any right, title or interest in any immovable property, the question of registering an instrument assigning such a decree cannot arise.

33. The holding to the contrary in K. Bhaskaram (supra) on the aspect of the need for registration of an assignment deed assigning a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale, does not lay down the correct law. In that case, it appears that parties proceeded on an admission that the registration was required. Further in that case, the Court faulted the assignment for breach of Order 21 Rule 16 also.

34. In any event, in view of what has been held hereinabove, the assignment deed (Exhibit B1) assigning the decree of specific performance in this case did not require registration. The Executing Court which denied execution of the decree was clearly wrong and the High Court which set aside the judgment of the Executing Court was clearly right. We uphold the judgment of the High Court for the reasons set out hereinabove.