Govinda Menon, J.- I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and while I agree with his conclusion I would venture to add a few words of my own, especially since the question argued is bereft of authority in this Court and is important from the point of view of the construction of the Registration Act. Is the compromise decree charging properties specifically mentioned in the schedule thereto, but which were not in terms the subject matter of the litigation, compulsorily registrable under section 17(1) of the Registration Act? That it is a document which purports to create right, title and interest in immoveable property of the value of more than Rs. 100 has not been questioned; and but for the fact that section 17(2) clause (vi) as it originally stood exempted a decree or order of Court from being compulsorily registered, the decree in question would, of necessity, be registrable. By the amendment made by section 10 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, the words

“except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding.”

have been added to clause (vi) of section 17(2). The result of this amendment is to make a decree passed on a compromise comprising immoveable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit compulsorily registrable. Do the immoveable properties over which a charge has been created, when the provisions regarding instalment payment are not fulfilled, form the “subject matter” of the suit? Apparently, opposing views on a topic similar to the one in question have been expressed by Venkatasubba Rao, J. and Venkataramana Rao, J., in Govindaswami v. Rasu1and Ramayya v. Rangaraju2respectively. In the earlier case the question arose in the following way. Pending a suit for the recovery of a sum of money, the plaintiff got attached before judgment certain properties belonging to the defendant and later on the parties entered into a compromise and a decree was made embodying the terms. The compromise decree provided for the payment of the amount claimed in three months and created a charge for the sum decreed over the properties that had already been attached. In subsequent proceedings the question raised was whether the properties which were attached before judgment and became incorporated in the compromise decree with a charge being impressed upon the same, are the subject matter of the suit or not. The learned Judge was of opinion that an application for attachment was a “proceeding” within the meaning of section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act and therefore the attached properties must be deemed to have been the “subject matter” of a suit or “proceeding.” This decision does not in so many terms say that even though the properties were not originally included in the plaint or any relief claimed against them at the time the suit was filed, by subsequent action, if the parties wished to impress upon such properties a relief which was not originally asked for, such properties could be said to be the subject matter of the suit. Reliance was placed on this decision by Mr. R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar for the respondent that in order to understand the implication of the term “subject matter of the suit” what is finally imparted by the decree should be the guiding factor and not on what the plaintiff intended originally to fasten his claim. It seems to me that the construction that is sought to be put on this decision is a somewhat far fetched one. On the other hand Venkataramana Rao, J. decided a case somewhat on the same lines as the present one. See Ramayya v. Rangaraju1. Where a plaintiff filed a suition a promissory note executed by a Hindu father against the executant and his undivided sons claiming a decree against the father personally and against the sons by a decree against the assets of the family, there was a com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document