A compromise decree that operates as a lease requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

Leach, C.J.

1. The question in this appeal is, whether a compromise decree which operates as a lease requires registration.

2. In O.S. No. 25 of 1929 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad 21 fishermen sued for a declaration that they were entitled by custom to a right of fishing and to use certain parts of the foreshore at Mantapam for the purposes of drying, curing, storing and selling the fish caught, beaching and storing their fishing canoes and boats, and hauling and drying their fishing nets. They also asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with these operations. The suit was compromised and on 17th November 1930, a decree was passed in the terms agreed upon. There is no doubt that the decree was intended to operate as a lease. The word "lease" was used in the decree itself and the payments which the plaintiffs were to make to the defendant were referred to as "rent." The plaintiffs were to enjoy the rights claimed by them for a period of 21 years, whereupon the full enjoyment of the foreshore was to revert to the defendant. The plaintiffs were to pay in the aggregate Rs. 7500 per annum, based on a rate of Rs. 250 per boat per year. The names of the boatmen and the numbers of the boats possessed by them respectively were set out in the schedule. Paragraph 4 of the decree stated that at the expiry of the lease the defendant should take over the huts and buildings at their then value; but if he did not do this, the plaintiff should remove them within a period of one month at their own expense. Paragraph 6 stated:

That in respect of their shares together with interest due by the Sammatties who have committed default in payment of rent as per the terms of the above razinamah and as such lost their leasehold right, the defendant shall realise the same by issue of precept through Court against their persons and properties immovable and moveable.

By virtue of this provision the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 30 of 1940 against the appellants, who were plaintiffs 2, 4, 10, 11 and 14 respectively in O.S. No. 25 of 1929, to recover the rent payable by them. They raised the objection that the decree could not be enforced as it had not been registered. The Subordinate Judge upheld the contention. In doing so he relied on the decisions in Sachindra Mohan v. Ramgas Agarwalla AIR1932Pat97 , Nazir Ali v. Indra Kumar AIR1929Cal462 and Atul Krishna v. Zahed Mondal AIR1941Cal102 . On appeal the District Judge considered that the case was governed by the judgment of this Court in 33 Mad. 1024 and consequently held that the fact that the decree had not been registered did not render it unenforceable. This appeal is from the decision of the District Judge. It has been placed before a Pull Bench as it involves the consideration of the question whether 33 Mad. 1024 must be considered to have been overruled by the Privy Council in Hemanta Kumari. Debi v. Midnapore Zamindari Co. A.I.R. 1919 P.C. 79.

3. Before discussing the cases referred to, we will examine the relevant portions of Section 17, Registration Act. Sub-section (1) requires the registration of (a) instruments of gift of immovable property; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, a right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property; (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; (d) leases of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent; and (e) non-testamentary instruments, transferring or assigning a decree or order of a Court or an award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in