top of page

All decree and orders of the Court including compromise decree where the properties are outside the


(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 32799 of 2018) – February 05, 2020.

CORAM: Two judge bench comprising of Justice ASHOK BHUSHAN and Justice M.R. SHAH.

This court observed that; Section 17 of Registration Act is found under part III of the act under the heading “of Registrable Documents” which makes the registration of documents compulsory. Section 17(1) makes the registration of the documents compulsory. Section 17(2) specifies that nothing in clause (b) & (c) of sub-section (1) applies to various documents enumerated therein. Section 17(1) (b) of the act specifies that any non-testamentary instruments which declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest to immovable property requires registration. Section 17(2) (VI) states that the decree or order of a court does not require registration. The joint reading of section 17 (1) (b) and section 17 (2) (vi) states that the compromise decree of immovable property whether a decree or order is exempt from registration.

The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property where the land was recorded in the names of the defendant. A compromise decree was passed which declared the rights of the plaintiff and the remaining land belong to the defendant. The appellants continued the possession of the said property and claimed that the respondents forcefully took the possession of the area. The Civil Judge decided that the compromise decree in view of the lack of registration under section 17(1) (e) of the Registration Act is not admissible as evidence. The writ petition fled before the High Court challenging the above order was dismissed upholding the view of the Civil Judge. Aggrieved by this judgment an appeal was filed before this court.

The issue before this court is whether the compromise decree was required to be registered under section 17 of the Registration Act?

Also the first suit cannot be said to be a decree on the basis of compromise, “in view of the written statement filed by the defendant admitting the claim of the plaintiff to be correct”. The High Court relied on Bhoop Sigh (Supra) and Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another (supra) which was overruled by a Three Judge Bench judgment in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others v. Manjit Kaur and Others, (2019) 8 SCC 729. This case held that once a period of 12 years of adverse possession is over, even the owner’s right to eject him is lost. This court in Bhoop Singh case held that the earlier decree requires registration under paragraph 19 of the said judgment. The said paragraph has no application to the facts of the present case. Also in the judgment of Som Dev and Others Vs. Rati Ram and Another, (2006) 10 SCC 788 the court held that all the decree and order of the court including the compromise decree do not require registration.

This court finally held that the compromise decree in this case is not covered by exclusionary clause of Section 17 (2) (vi) and the present case is covered by main exception under section 17 (2) (vi). “When registration of an instrument as required by Section 17(1)(b) is specifically excluded by Section 17(2)(vi) by providing that nothing in clause (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to any decree or order of the Court, we are of the view that the compromise decree dated 04.10.1985 did not require registration and learned Civil Judge as well as the High Court erred in holding otherwise”.

Thus this court set aside the order of the Civil Judge and the judgment of the High Court. The compromise decree is thus allowed and is directed to be exhibited by the trial court.

View / Download the Judgment: MOHAMMADE YUSUF & ORS v.  RAJKUMAR & ORS.




bottom of page