METTU HANIMI REDDY Vs. METTU GOVINDAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this civil revision petition is to the docket order dtd. 23/7/2012 passed in O.S.No.146 of 2007 by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, whereby the objection raised by the petitioner herein/plaintiff in the suit regarding admissibility of compromise decree dtd. 21/12/1944 passed in O.S.No.267 of 1944 on the file of District Munsif Court, Guntur, in evidence in the present suit, on the ground that it was not registered, was rejected and the said compromise decree was admitted in evidence.

(2.) The objection as to the admissibility of compromise decree dtd. 21/12/1944 in O.S.No.267 of 1944 appears to have been raised on the ground that the said compromise decree comprises property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit, and thus, in terms of Sec. 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Act of 1908'), the said compromise decree is compulsorily registerable and without registration, the said decree is not admissible in evidence and cannot be marked as an exhibit.

(3.) Mr. P. Girish Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff, would draw the attention of this Court to the suit schedule property in O.S.No.267 of 1944 and the compromise decree dtd. 21/12/1944 passed in the said suit, to point out that some properties, which were not part of the original suit schedule, were included in the compromise decree and, therefore, in terms of Sec. 17(2)(vi) of the Act of 1908, the compromise decree in O.S.No.267 of 1944 is compulsorily reigsterable and is inadmissible in evidence without registration. He would submit that whether it is a compromise decree for partition or any other decree, the rigour of law as contained in Sec. 17(2)(vi) of the Act of 1908 would equally apply to all decrees and no exception can be carved out for applying the principle differently. Learned Senior Counsel would refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in K. Raghunandan v. Ali Hussain Sabir reported in (2008) 13 SCC 102 and also the decision of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in G. Sanjeeva Reddy (died) per L.Rs. v. Indukuru Lakshmamma reported in 2001 (4) ALT 490, in support of his submissions.