A compromise decree which divides immoveable property between the plaintiffs and the defendants cannot be said to be a decree "expressed to be made on a compromise and compromising immoveable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit" within the meaning of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal has been directed to be posted before a Bench by our learned brother Umamaheswaram, J. , because he considered that it raised a question of importance involving the interpretation of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are these : The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are brothers who become divided some time before suit. One Pydithalli, the son of their paternal uncle, died issucless in the year 1942 and his properties were inherited by Kannamma, his widow, who alienated the suit lands as well as some other properties in favour of one Sanni. Thereupon the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in their capacity as the nearest reversioners to the estate of Pydithalli filed O. S. No. 166 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Chodavaram, against the widow and her alienee, who were impleaded as the 2nd the 1st defendants respectively, for a declaration that the alienation would not bind the estate of late Pydithalli. The suit resulted in a compromise between the alienee and the brothers. The compromise decree passed therein which is dated 3rd October, 1945, contains these terms :" (1) That the sale deed dated 7th April, 1945, executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant do stand cancelled ; (2) that the second defendant do take only items 9 and 11 of the plaint schedule without any power of alienation during her life-time and the plaintiffs do enjoy them afterwards absolutely ; (3) that the plaintiffs do take possession of other items of the plaint schedule at the end of the telugu Year and enjoy them absolutely ; (4) that the first defendant and plaintiffs do pay 5 putties of paddy for this year to the second defendant and the rest of the crops in the suit lands be shared in equal shares between the plaintiffs and the first defendant ; and (5) that each party do bear its own costs of this suit. NOTE.-The other terms of the compromise are recorded. Compromise petition is attached to this decree as schedule thereto. Plaint schedule attached to decree. "

( 3 ) IT may be noted that the preamble to this decree states- "the plaintiffs having proved their claim against the ex parte second defendant and having agreed to take a decree in terms of the compromise against the second defendant also, the Court doth in pursuance of the said deed of compromise order and decree ". Despite this compromise, the brothers had to file a second suit O. S. No. 78 of 1946 against Kannamma and Sanni for mesne profits. It was decreed against both of them by the trial Court ; but on appeal, the widow was exonerated from liability on the ground that she had no possession of the properties in respect of which the mesne profits were claimed. While that appeal was pending, the present 1st defendant obtained a sale deed for the lands from Kannamma to which both he and plaintiff were entitled under the earlier compromise decree. The present second defendant is an alienee from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff now seeks to recover his half share of the suit lands from the defendants on the foot of the compromise decree.

( 4 ) SEVERAL defences were raised of which only one now survives, viz. , that the compromise decree is inadmissible in evidence under section 49 of the Indian Registration act for the purpose of effecting title to the suit properly, because it required to be registered and was not. The contention is that the suit which resulted in the compromise was filed only for a declaration by presumptive reversioners that the property covered by the sale deed executed by Kannamma in favour of Sanni did not bind the reversion the compromise whereby the properties in respect of which the declaration was sought were divided among the plaintiffs, the alienee and the widow, required registration because it could not be said that the immoveable property which was divided was " the subject-matter of the suit " within the meaning of