SRI PAT Vs. AMROO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration brought by the present respondent against the appellant pertaining to 88 Kanals of land in Khewats Nos. 8 and 9 in village Mangota tehsil Doda. The facts relevant to the disposal of this second appeal are that a suit was brought by Sripat appellant against Anant Ram and others for a decree of joint possession of land measuring 136 Kanals and 7 marlas. He got a decree from the Sub -Judge Udhampur for this land which decree was upheld by the District Judge and this Court also. In execution proceedings in pursuance of that decree a compromise was entered into between Sripat appellant and Anant Ram and others on llth Jeth 2004 whereby Sripat relinquished his claim in the decree to the extent of 83 Kanals in favour of Anant Ram judgement debtor, on the allegation that he had given up his claim to the land in favour of Anant Ram for a consideration of Rs. 1000. The compromise was attested, the result of which was that the execution petition was dismissed to the extent of 88 kanals above referred to. Later on this Sripat transferred the entire 136 Kanals and 7 marlas, for which he had obtained a decree, by means of two sale deeds dated 27 -4 -57 and 28 -4 -57. Amroo widow of Anant Ram brought a suit for declaration that the sale deeds executed by Sripat appellant to the extent ot 88 Kanals were void. In defence Sripat raised a number of pleas and the prominent among those are that the compromise of llth Jeth 2004 did not pass any title to Anant Ram in these 88 Kanals as the compromise deed was not registered. Secondly Anant Ram was present at the time of the mutation proceedings of this land in favour of the first defendant and, therefore, his widow was estopped from bringing the present suit. The trial court of Munsiff Doda heard the case and decreed the suit on 5 -4 -1963 after framing necessary issues. An appeal against that decree was preferred before the District Judge Bhaderwah who by means of his order under appeal dated 29 -5 -1965 dismissed the appeal. The defendant Sripat has come up in second appeal to this court.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant at lenght and have heard the learned counsel for the respondent also. The argument of Mr. D. D. Thakur is that under the provisions of S. 17 (2) (vi) of the Registration Act only that compromise is protected and exempted from registration which but for the compromise would be the subject matter of an order by the court on merits. What he means to say is that if the court could dismiss the application of Sripat on merits to the extent of 88 Kanals then and then alone would such a compromise which is the basis of this suit be exempted from registration. According to him the executing court could not pass any such order extinguishing the decree to the extent of 88 Kanals and, therefore, the compromise which seeks to extinguish the decree to that extent was compulsorily registerable. His further argument was that there was a separate Order dealing with compromises in the Code of Civil Procedure Under Order 21 of C. P. C. which dealt with execution the word compromise was absent and, therefore, a compromise was beyond the scope of an execution petition.

(3.) THE argument of Mr. D. D. Thakur is ingenious no doubt but I do not find any force in this argument. In the first place let me cite section 17 (2) (vi) which reads :