The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compulsory registration of a compromise decree under the Registration Act, as well as the enforceability of non-reciprocal promises in a compromise agreement.

JUDGMENT :

Harilal, J

The appellant and the respondent are the judgment debtor and decree holder respectively in E.P.No.23/2019 in O.P.No. 575/2014 on the files of the Family Court, Mavelikara. They are husband and wife respectively. This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Family court rejecting the challenge against maintainability of the execution petition, holding that the compromise decree passed in O.P.No.575/2014 is an enforceable one.

2. The respondent filed O.P.No.575/2014 seeking a decree for return of money and gold ornaments from the appellant herein. The matter in dispute had been settled by way of compromise agreement, which culminated into a compromise decree accordingly. The compromise agreement consists of five clauses. As per the first clause, both parties agreed to maintain their marital relationship. As per the second clause, the appellant agreed to assign 12 cents of his property to his children. As per the third and fourth clauses, the respondent herein agreed to withdraw her claim under the Domestic Violence Act and the claim for return of money and gold ornaments. As per the fifth clause, the respondent will not obstruct the appellant's right to meet the children.

3. Thereafter the respondent filed E.P.No.23/2019 to enforce the execution of the assignment deed in favour of the children as promised by the appellant under clause (ii). The appellant entered appearance and filed an objection contending as follows:

i. The compromise decree is not an enforceable one.

ii. The compromise decree is not registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act.

iii. The respondent failed to perform her part in the compromise agreement and thereby she violated the terms of the decree.

iv. The children are not parties to the suit and the compromise decree is valid only insofar as the compromise relates to the parties to the suit.

4. After considering the rival pleas, the family court rejected all the aforesaid contentions on a finding that the compromise decree is an enforceable one, notwithstanding the absence of its registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and non-performance of the promises from the part of the respondent/decree holder. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid findings are challenged in this appeal.

5. Heard Sri.P.B.Ajoy, the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Sri.P.B.Ajoy, the learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments exhaustively contending that the execution petition is not an enforceable one, as the non-registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act is fatal. According to him, since the compromise decree is comprising of immovable property, other than the subject matter of the suit, it will not fall under Clause (vi) of Section 17(2) of the Act and thereby the compromise decree became compulsorily registrable.

7. The questions that arises for consideration in view of the above arguments is as follows:

i. What kind of decree requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act.

ii. Whether the obligation imposed on a party to the compromise decree to assign an immovable property, other than subject matter of the suit requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act.

8. Going by the terms of compromise imposing obligation on the appellant, we find that what is agreed to be done by clause (ii) is a promise to assign his immovable property to his children and no immovable property has been transferred by the compromise decree itself.

9. In the above context, let us examine the provisions, which would make the registration of a compromise decree compulsory. On a reading of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, we find that the non-testamentary instruments, which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of Rs.100/-and upwards, to or in immovable propert