The period of limitation for presenting a document for registration under S. 23 of the Registration Act begins only after the document has come into existence, and a final decree in a partition suit becomes executable only when engrossed on stamp paper and issued to the parties.

D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 7th March, 2002 passed in Ex. C, No. 15/01, wherein the Executing Court rejected the objections raised by some of the judgment debtors as to the tenability of the execution.

( 2 ) THE said objections were raised mainly on two grounds; that the decree that had been drawn up pursuant to a compromise that had been entered into between the parties in the appeal before this Court had not been drawn up on stamp paper of sufficient value commensurate to the nature of transactions and the value of the properties which were the subject matter of the decree and also on the ground that the said decree which had been drawn up pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties which had been presented for registration is beyond the period of four months, whereas as per S. 23 of the Registration Act it should have been presented for registration within 4 months from the date of the decree.

( 3 ) THE Executing Court overruled these objections having found that the Registrar had actually collected the deficit value of stamp duty by issuing notice to the party who is seeking for registration. The other question regarding limitation was not exactly answered in the sense that the objections were treated as not serious but frivolous which have been raised for the purpose of protracting the execution proceeding only. In fact the decree had been passed on a compromise petition according to the terms and understandings between the parties. The judgment debtor being aggrieved by this order is in revision before this Court invoking the jurisdiction under S. 115 of C. P. C.

( 4 ) A few more facts to appreciate the rival issues are that the respondent in this revision had filed O. S. No. 15/90 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),madikeri and inter alia against the petitioner and other defendants praying for a share by partition in respect of A schedule properties and in respect of B schedule properties for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit in respect of A schedule properties was dismissed holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in those properties, while the suit was decreed in respect of B schedule properties granting the relief of injunction on the finding that they were the self acquired properties of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) THIS matter was carried in an appeal to this Court by the plaintiff and the same was pending. The parties arrived at a compromise and filed a compromise petition before this Court. The said compromise petition was entertained by this Court under Order 23 Rule 3 of C. P. C. In terms of the compromise petition, the judgment and decree was pronounced on 8-4-1999 and this Court issued directions to draw up a final decree. It appears that necessary stamp papers were furnished by the Appellant some where during the month of December 2000 and a decree was made up by engrossing the decree on the stamp papers and the same was issued by the Registrar under his signature as on 7-12-2000. It appears thereafter the said decree which was made up on 7-12-2000 was presented for registration as on 22-12-2000 and was registered on that day.

( 6 ) SRI G. K. V. Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the validity of the order of the Executing Court mainly on two grounds; that the decree drawn up was not on stamp paper of sufficient value and as such was not a valid decree. Secondly and more seriously that the said decree was in fact presented beyond the period of 4 months i. e. , from 8-4-1999, the date on which the compromise decree was passed by this Court and as such beyond the period of 4 months as required under S. 23 of the Registration Act and the registration is not valid in the eye of law. The said registration is null and void in view of S. 23 of the Registration Act and due to such invalid registration the decree also becomes invalid in the eye of law. Therefore such an invalid decree cannot be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document