ORDER :

Challenge in this civil revision petition is to the docket order dated 23.07.2012 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 dated 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 dated 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 Section 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 dated 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 Section 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 Section 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.

4. Per contra, Mr. S. Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 11, would submit that in view of the law laid down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in C. Prabbn Rajarao v. Ch. Thirupathamma reported in 1988 (1) ALT 842, a family arrangement entered into between the parties and reduced by the Court into a compromise decree is not compulsorily registerable, even if some properties, which are not the subject matter of the suit originally, are included in the compromise decree.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this civil revision petition must fail for the reasons discussed hereinbelow.

6. It is to be noted that though as per Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act of 1908, a compromise decree passed by a Court is registerable if it comprises immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit, the fact remains that an instrument of partition is never held to be compulsorily registerable.

7. In Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham reported in AIR 1966 SC 1836, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of requirement of registration of family arrangements. The terms of the family arrangement in the said case would speak about respective shares of the family members that would come into effect only in future if and when division takes place and there was neither division in status nor a division by metes and bounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the observations made in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 17 at pp. 215-216, concerning the nature of family arrangements and conditions for their validity, to the effect that family arrangements are governed by