A consent decree that comprises immovable property within the subject matter of the suit is exempt from the requirement of registration under Clause (vi) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.17 of the Registration Act.

1. This rule was issued at the instance of two petitioners one of whom was the plaintiff in an action for dissolution of partnership and accounts and the other was defendant Second party in that action. The opposite parties before us were defendants first and third parties in the suit.

2. The rule is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madhipura, dated 30-3-1951, by which the learned Subordinate Judge asked the petitioners to pay further court-fees in the following circumstances. The suit, as I have already stated, was one for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. It was based on an unregistered deed of partnership, dated 3-7-1949, said to have been executed by the plaintiff, the defendant first and the defendant second party for the purpose of carrying on a business in the name and style of Sri Hanuman Rice and Oil Mill at a place called Murliganj. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he had contributed a sum of Rs. 72,000.00 odd towards the assets of the partnership business. The plaintiffs case was that a sum of Rs. 83,000.00 odd was due to him and he paid court-fees on that amount. The suit was based on the allegation that the plaintiff had determined the partnership by giving notices to the defendants on 17-1-1950. The defendant second paity, it was alleged, had contributed about Rs. 62,000. As he did not join as a plaintiff, he was put in the category of a defendant.

3. On the 1st March, 1951, a petition of compromise was filed on behalf of all the parties. This petition of compromise recited that the assets of the Rice and Oil Mill at Murliganj in the shape of machinery etc. were valued at Rs. 1,06,881/- odd. The parties agreed that the entire assets were to be given to the plaintiff and the defendant second party. The plaintiff and the defendant second party paid Rs. 25,000 in cash to the defendants first and third parties. With regard to balance out of Rs. 1,06,881/- a sum of Rs. 58,820.00 was set off in full satisfaction of the dues of the defendant second party, and a sum of Rs. 23,060.00 odd was set off in part satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff. The parties further agreed that for the balance of the dues of the plaintiff, a decree for Rs. 60,000.00 might be passed against the defendants first and third parties. The parties prayed that the suit be disposed of in terms of the petition of compromise.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge took the view that the consent decree which the parties wanted him to pass required registration inasmuch as the machinery etc. which were to be given to the plaintiff and defendant second party were immovable properties within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. On calculation the learned Subordinate Judge found that the charges of registering a sale-deed for immovable properties worth Rs. 1,06,881/- would be Rs. 2,775/-. He directed the plaintiff and the defendant Second party to pay court-fees worth Rs. 2,775/-. He further directed the defendant second party to pay court-fees worth Rs. 2,505/15/- on the sum of Rs. 58,820.00 odd which were the dues of the defendant second party and were satisfied by one of the terms of the compromise petition. The learned Subordinate Judge staled that, on payment of the court-fees mentioned above, necessary orders would be passed on the compromise petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended before us that the learned Subordinate Judge acted without jurisdiction in refusing to record the compromise unless further court-fees were paid. He has contended that no court-fees were payable, and the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in asking the parties to pay court-fees before the compromise was recorded.

6. In our opinion, the contention of the learned Government Advocate is correct and should be accepted. Clause (vi) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.17 of the Registration Act lays down that nothing in Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (