The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of registration for documents creating or extinguishing rights, as well as the prohibition of agreements against public policy.

B. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE present appeal has been filed against the order of Addl. District judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 13/1985 by which learned judge rejected the application under Order 23, Rule 3, CPC.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that defendant No. 1 is tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant is denied by respondent No. 1 and he claimed that he is living as owner in the property. The respondent No. 1 filed an application on 27-11-1984 under Order 23, Rule 3, CPC that parties have compromised and in terms of this compromise, an agricultural land situt ated at Abohar was the bone of contention. It has been stated that defendant will not interfere into the land and the plaintiff has accepted that defendant No. 1 is occupying house No. 33a, Block Public Park as a owner in terms of mutual partnership as agreed by the parties. It was prayed in the application that suit should be decided in terms of the agreement.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff opposed the application of defendant No. 1 and has denied the compromise. It was contended on behalf of plaintiff that document relied upon by the document does not come within the definition of family arrangement.

( 4 ) ISSUES were settled and out of these issues, issue No. 3 was decided as a preliminary issue. After hearing the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that every document which has in itself a tendency to create and extinguish the right of the parties, the same have to be registered compulsorily in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act. The learned trial Court has quoted terms of the compromise wherein it has been recorded that the parties have now compromised that defendant who has got the house will continue to be the owner of it and the plaintiff has no right or title in the house. It has been observed by the trial court that this recorded writing has in itself a tendency to create rights in favour of respondent No. 1 and extinguish the rights of the plaintiff, therefore, it is compulsorily registrable. It has also been found that this agreement is in violation of Section 23 of the Contract Act because the same has an object of defeating the provisions of Indian registration Act and therefore the agreement is against the public policy. As such, the compromise being forbidden by law, the same cannot be entered into. It has been declared by the trial Court that compromise is against Section 23 -of the Contract Act, therefore, the same cannot be recorded.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has urged that law regarding registrability of a document is well settled. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that as and when, a party creates a right by an agreement between the family and it is family arrangement, then it is required to be registered for being admissible in evidence. Only such documents are required to be registered which create or extinguish the rights. The appellant has relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807 wherein it has been observed as under : the family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary. The registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case, the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and is. therefore, not compulsorily registrable. "

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has further relied on the decision in the case of roshan Singh v. Zile Singh , AIR 1988 SC 881, wherein it has been observed as under at page 887 :"