( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Additional Junior civil Judge, Kadiri dated 6-8-1999 passed in o. S. No. 341 of 1987 under which, during the course of trial, the learned Junior Civil judge rejected the objection to admission of a compromise deed entered into between the parties hi a previous suit in O. S. No. 82 of 1965 dated 6-1-1968 on the ground that it is inadmissible in view of Section 17 of the registration Act on the ground that the compromise decree comprises the property, which is not the subject matter of the suit.

( 3 ) THE objection with regard to admissibility of this compromise decree in o. S. No. 82 of 1965 was that suit was for specific performance of agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The vendor is said to have already sold that property in favour of defendant No. 2 in that suit. Under the compromise decree, it was provided that the purchaser from the vendor, defendant no. 2, therein, shall be entitled to enjoy the property absolutely. Obviously, in view of this understanding, the suit for specific performance of the plaintiff was to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE contention raised was that inasmuch as in a suit for specific performance, the only question that falls for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree forspecific performance or not, any compromise not related to the question of specific performance will fall outside the purview of the explanation under Section 17 (2) of the registration Act in respect of documents requiring registration. This contention is based on clause (6) of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Registration Act, which reads as follows:"17. Documents of which registration is compulsory: (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the indian Registration Act, 1866 (XX of 1866), or the Registration Act, 1871 (VII of 1871), or the Indian. Registration Act, 1877 (III of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely: (a) instruments of gift of immovable property; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purporr or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent, of the vale of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property; (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx provided that the State Government may, by order published in the Official gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any leases executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years, and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees. (2) Nothing in cls. (b) and (c) of subsection (1) applies to - (i) any composition deed; (ii) xxx (iii) xxx (iv) xxx (v) xxx (vi) any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject- matter of the suit or proceeding; or (vii) xxx (viii) xxx (ix) xxx (x) xxx (xi) xxx (xii) xxx (3) xxxx"

( 5 ) IN this case, what is sought to be admitted into, evidence is the decree of the Court passed on a compromise. Subsection (2) of Section 17 postulates that nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-sec. (1) applies to the documents covered by various clauses in the said sub-section (2 ). In other words, documents mentioned under sub-section (2) would not be compulsorily registrable. In the documents under clause (vi) of sub-section (2); a decree or order of a Court has beer? included as one of those documents which are not compulsorily required to be registered notwithstanding the provisions under clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1