A compromise decree creating new rights in immovable property requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if it establishes rights for the first time.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, C.J.

1. The technicalities should not act in deterrence to the rendering substantial justice by putting quietus to the litigation in bringing the cause to its final destination. The present case is one of the examples of exploring the avenue provided under the Constitution of India in challenging a portion of a compromised decree despite the alternative remedy by way of an appeal provided in the statute.

Initially, the question fell for consideration whether a successful litigant can challenge the portion of a compromise decree by filing an appeal but after going through the records and the submissions so advanced, this Court does not find that projection of technical aspect would enure to the substantial justice and therefore, proceeded to decide the points so urged on the parameters of the law applicable in this regard.

2. Initially, the writ petition was filed assailing a portion of a compromise decree whereby and whereunder the court below directed the compromise decree to be registered under the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 as it purported to create a right, title and interest into the plaintiff/petitioner in respect of an immovable property but the predecessor in office was of the view that it has to be registered as a civil revision petition and directed to change the nomenclature as both the jurisdictions can be exercised by this Court. Pursuant to such direction, the writ petition is converted into a civil revision petition and is listed today for answering the seminal points as to whether the compromise decree is required to be registered having created a right, title and interest in respect of the immovable property under Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908.

3. Before this Court proceeds to decide the said seminal point, a prelude to litigation is required to be recapitulated ensuring brevity in addressing the legal point involved in the instant matter. Admittedly, Plot No.3991/5725 recorded in Khata No.630/554 in Mouza – Kulad comprising of 0.56 decimals of land was owned and possessed by the defendant/opposite party. By virtue of an unregistered document, the defendant/opposite party sold, transferred and conveyed the said immovable property on 15.07.1999 to the plaintiff/petitioner for consideration of Rs.3750/- necessitated by exigencies to meet the medical expenditure and possession of the said land was handed over to the plaintiff/petitioner on 03.11.1999. The plaint proceeds that after taking possession, the approach was made by the petitioner for execution and registration of the sale deed but the defendant/opposite party intended to return the said amount and the possession to be given back which was not accepted and/or acceded to by the plaintiff/petitioner as he has already spent a considerable amount of money and labour in development of the said suit land. The plaint was filed in the year 2012 for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit land primarily on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioner is possessing and/or occupying the land uninterruptedly, continuously and in hostile manner to the knowledge of the defendant/opposite party and thus, perfected the right, title and interest by way of an adverse possession. The defendant/opposite party resisted the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner in contending that the possession was taken by force and the sai