Compromise Decree do not require registration; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice M R Shah

In the present case { MOHAMMADE YUSUF & ORS. v. RAJKUMAR & ORS.}, the trial court has held that the compromise decree sought to be filed is not admissible in evidence for want of registration, which order was assailed, unsuccessfully before the HC.

Allowing the appeal, it was held by the SC that all decree and orders of the Court including compromise decree, subject to the exception, as referred that the properties that are outside the subject matter of the suit, do not require registration.

It was held by the SC that in facts of the present case, the decree dated 04.10.1985 was with regard to property, which was subject matter of the suit, hence not covered by exclusionary clause of Section 17(2)(vi) and present case is covered by the main exception crafted in Section 17(2)(vi), i.e., “any decree or order of a Court”. It was held that 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, therefore, 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. Accordingly, the SC set aside the order of the Civil Judge dated 07.01.2015 as well as the judgment of the High Court dated 13.02.2017. The compromise decree dated 04.10.1985 was directed to be exhibited by the trial court. And the appeal stands allowed by the SC.