The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for registration of a charge created by a decree under Section 17, Clause 2(6) of the Registration Act.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This batch of revision petitions arises out of an order for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds of property realised in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 23 of 1931 passed by the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur. This order is impeached by the petitioner the decree-holder in the said suit on the ground that the sale proceeds are not liable to be distributed. To appreciate the contentions raised en his behalf by his learned Counsel ? Mr. Suryanarayana, a few facts may be necessary. the petitioner filed a suit the, said O.S. No. 23 of 1931 against one Chunduri Panakala Rao and his three sons to recover a sum of Rs. 9,192 9-0 on foot of a promissory note executed by the said Chunduri Panakala Rao in bis favour. It is admitted that the said Chunduri Panakala Rao and his three sons who are defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in that suit form members of an undivided Hindu family. The allegation in the plaint is that the debt was contracted by the father for a necessary purpose and, therefore, the debt is binding on the sons. The prayer in the plaint is that a decree may be passed against the 1st defendant, the father personally, and against the joint family proper-lies in the hands of the other defendants, This suit was compromised and a decree was passed in terms of the said compromise on February 5, 1932. In and by the said decree the defendants were directed to pay the amount decreed in two instalments and as security for the due repayment of the said sum a charge was created on two items of immovable property specified in the schedule thereto, namely, a house in Palakole and 2 acres and 4 cents of land in the same place. On July 5, 1933, the said property was attached and brought to sale and one-fourth of the sale proceeds were deposited on July 5, and the remaining sale proceeds were deposited on July 17, 1933. Several decree-holders, same of whom obtained decrees against the father at the and some of whom obtained decrees against the father and the sons filed applications for rateable distribution of the said sale proceeds. The petitioner contended that no question of rateable distribution arose in view of the fact that a charge was created in his favour in and by virtue of the said decree in O.S. No. 23 of 1931. This contention is pressed before me by his learned Counsel. This contention was negatived by the Subordinate Judge en the ground that the said decree not having been registered as required by Section 17, Clause (2)(6) of the Registration Act, the charge cannot prevail. The question is whether this view is sound. Section 17, Clause 2(6) of the Registration Act exempts some documents from registration among other decrees and orders of Court and the Clause relating to the same runs thus:

Any decree or order of a Court 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.

2. It will be seen that while the Clause exempts decrees and orders of Court from registration, it provides an exception so far as decrees or orders passed on a compromise end comprising immovable property which is net the subject matter of the suit or proceeding which has been compromised. This exception, it may be noticed, was introduced in 1929 July Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929. Before the amendment the Privy Council, in Hemanta Kumarris Case Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapore Zamindari Co. 47 C 485 : 53 Ind. Cas. 534 : 37 MLJ 525 : 17 ALJ 1117 : 24 CWN 177 : (1920) MWN 66 : 27 MLT 42 : 11 LW 301 : 46 IA 240 : 31 CLJ 298 : 22 Bom. LR 488(PC). observed that where an agreement of compromise comprised lands not included in the suit and a decree was passed in accordance therewith incorporating the whole agreement, the decree will be admissible in evidence in regard to lands outside the purview of suit without the bar of registration. The effect of the amendment is to superse