( 1 ) THIS is an application moved by the parties, praying for directions to registry to draw the decree in the suit in terms of Order dated 4. 12. 2002 without requiring filing of valuation report and supply of non-judicial stamp papers.

( 2 ) FACTS in brief are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts, pleading that Kartar Singh was the absolute owner in possession of immovable properties (1) Two and a half storeyed building bearing No. C-4/6. Rama Pratap Bagh, Delhi, (2) Garage Nos. 9-10 at Gulabi bagh, Delhi, and (3) Property No. C. W. 71, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, delhi. He died on 4. 4. 1992 leaving behind Plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 and 4 (daughters), Smt. Amarjit Kaur (widow) and Karamjit Singh (minor son ). Kartar Singh got married with defendant No. 1 after the death of his first wife. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are children from the first wife. Plaintiffs prayed for a decree of partition, by metes and bounds of 1/6 share in the immovable properties. On 4. 12. 2002, an application was moved by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, praying for disposal of the suit in terms of compromise. It was inter alia agreed that all the three suit properties shall be sold and out of the sale proceeds both the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely Amarjit Kaur and her son Karamjit singh shall get 62% of the same and balance 38% shall be divided amongst four daughters (plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 ). The suit was decreed, as per the compromise. It was ordered that terms contained in the application shall form part of the decree. Thereafter Registry wrote to the parties requiring them to submit the valuation report of the properties from the approved valuer and for supply of requisite non-judicial stamp papers. On receipt of the letter, the parties moved the present application for directions to Registry to draw the decree without insisting upon the said requirement.

( 3 ) LOOKING to the nature of controversy involved Shri Suresh Singh, advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. I have heard learned counsel for parties, learned Amicus Curiae and have been taken through the record.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff and defendants argued that Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, enumerate the kind of documents which require compulsory registration. The decree in the present case being for partition in relation to immovable properties, would fall under Section 17 (l) (b ). However, in view of the exception contained in Section 17 (2) (vi), the decree of partition under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 17, would not require registration and not required to be engrossed on the stamp paper. Reliance is placed on the decision of this court in Gaj. Singh Yaday (Lt. Col.) v. Satish Chander Yadav and Ors. , 1999 (51) DRJ 240 : 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 69, Chander Sain Jain v. Shri sumer Chand, 1999 (51) DRJ 671 : 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 75, and P. K. Nangia v. Land and Development Officer, New Delhi and Anr. , AIR 1988 delhi 260.

( 5 ) LEARNED Amicus Curiae, supporting the plaintiffs submission on facts argued that in this case compromise decree does not require compulsory registration and stamping, as the deed of agreement or decree does not affect the division of immovable property by metes arid bounds, but only defines shares.

( 6 ) THE circumstances under which the exception engrafted in Section (vi) of Section 17 (2) of the Registration Act would apply, were considered in detailed by the Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, AIR 1996 SC 196, and it was held as under:

" (1) Compromise decree if bona fide, in the sense that the compromise is not a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the law relating to registration, would not require registration. It a converse situation, it would require registration. (2) If the compromise decree were to create for the first time right