SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
Shantilata Sahoo - Appellant
Versus
Sub-registrar, Cuttack - Respondent
W.P.(C) NO. 8168 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2023

Advocates:
Mr. Ajit Chandra Mohapatra, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel, for the Opp. Parties.

IMPORTANT POINT
A compromise decree that creates new rights in immovable property valued at Rs. 100 or more is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.

Headnote:

REGISTRATION - Compulsory Registration of Decrees - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - The court discussed the necessity of registering compromise decrees that create new rights in immovable property valued at Rs. 100 or more, as established in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major. The court emphasized that such decrees are compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, and clarified that the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register the decree was based on a misconception of the law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a direction for the Sub-Registrar, Cuttack, to accept a certified copy of a judgment and decree from a prior appeal, which was necessary for registration. The decree was based on a compromise that created new rights in immovable property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decree in question was indeed registrable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, as it created new rights in favor of the respondent. The court noted that the Sub-Registrar's refusal was due to a misunderstanding of the legal requirements for registration.

Issues: Whether the compromise decree required registration under the Registration Act, 1908, and whether the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register the decree was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a compromise decree that creates new rights in immovable property valued at Rs. 100 or more is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. The court distinguished between cases where new rights are created and those where only pre-existing rights are adjusted.

Final Decision: The court directed the Sub-Registrar, Cuttack, to accept the certified copy of the judgment and decree for registration, thereby allowing the writ petition.

JUDGMENT

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. On the oral prayer of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, he is permitted to incorporate State of Orissa represented through its Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department as Opposite Party No.1 to the writ petition in Court itself.

3. Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to Opposite Party No.2-Sub-Registrar, Cuttack to accept the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 26th December, 2022 and 6th January, 2023 respectively passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No.459 of 2022 (Annexure-2) for registration.

4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that CS No.288 of 2021 was dismissed vide judgment dated 19th May, 2022 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, 1st Court, Cuttack without accepting the compromise entered into between the parties. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed RFA No.459 of 2022, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 26th December, 2022 with the following observation and direction.

    '...In Bhoop Singh versus Ram Singh major and ors reported in (1995)5 SCC 709 where the Hon'ble Apex court held that

    "the decree or order including compromise decree granting new right, title and interest in immovable property of value of Rs.100/- or above is compulsorily registrable."

    In a instance case as the suit land has been recorded in the name of the appellant who is a female Hindu, in view of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act it is clear that the suit land is the absolute property of the appellant and as per the terms of compromise a new right is going to be created in favour of the respondent. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra the decree as per the terms of compromise in the present case requires registration and the parties have to pay the required stamp duty.

    Hence ordered.

ORDER

    The appeal is allowed on contest against the Respondent without cost. The judgment dtd. 19.05.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, 1st Court, Cuttack in Civil Suit No.288 of 2021 is hereby set aside. The suit be decreed the terms of compromise subject to payment of the required stamp duties and the compromise petition shall form part of the decree.'

In view of the above findings of the learned appellate Court, the certified copy of judgment and decree in RFA No.459 of 2022 was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.2 for registration. The Sub-Registrar under a misconception that a judgment and decree arrived on compromise is not registrable, refused to accept the same. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

4.1 Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and others, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 709, which has also been taken note of by learned appellate Court. He, therefore, submits that since a new right is created in favour of the Respondent in the aforesaid appeal by virtue of the compromise, the judgment and decree is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity 'the Registration Act'). He, therefore, prays for a direction to the SubRegistrar, Cuttack to accept the certified copy of the judgment and decree for registration.HF

5. Mr. Mishra, learned ASC does not dispute the legal position. In furtherance to his argument, Mr. Mishra, learned ASC relied upon the case law in the case of Ripudaman Singh Vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand, reported in (2021) 7 SCC 446, wherein Bhoop Singh Major (supra) has been discussed as under:-

    '14. In respect of a question whether the decree requires registration or not, this Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others held that decree or order including compromise decree creating new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of value of Rs.100/- or above is compulsory for registration. It was not the case any preexisting right but right that has been created by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top