AMAR SINGH Vs. MANRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Amar Singh plaintiff has challenged in this revision-petition the order of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri, dated 14/11/1990 whereby he rejected an application for passing the decree in accordance with the compromise entered into between the parties to the suit.

(2.) Amar Singh filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession in equal share of land measuring 22 kanals 6 marlas, being 3/8 shares of the total land measuring 60 kanals 8 marlas, which is in dispute and that defendants Nos. 2 to 4 Raghbir and others have no concern with the same. Further declaration was sought that the sale deed dated 8/03/1985 and mutation No. 487 dated 9/03/1984. In respect of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, the parties entered into a compromise and moved the Court for passing the decree in accordance thereof. The statements of the parties were recorded. Compromise Exhibit CX was admitted into evidence. However, the application was dismissed on the ground that the compromise aforesaid required registration under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

(3.) The approach of the learned trial Court in respect of the applicability of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, is entirely erroneous. By entering into a compromise, the parties have not either created or extinguished any right in the property. In substance, the claim of the plaintiff stands recognised in the compromise. Further more, even if on the basis of such a compromise, a decree had been passed, the same could not be held to be bad in law for want of registration. This question was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Gurdev Kaur v. Mehar Singh (1990) 1 Punj LR 334 and it was held :-