A compromise or consent decree does not require registration, and it can be reopened in a subsequent suit only on the grounds on which a contract can be set aside.

GOKAL CHAND MITAL, J.

1. Twin questions of law, namely, whether a compromise or consent decree regarding immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100.00 or more, which is subject matter of the suit, would require registration or not; and whether such a decree can be reopened in a subsequent suit by going behind the decree, reopening all the facts even if it is proved that the decree was not obtained by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, that is, the grounds on which a contract can be avoided, arise in this appeal, which has been admitted to Division Bench for determination in view of the conflict of opinion between the single Bench decisions of this Court.

2. In order to appreciate the two legal points, the facts may be briefly stated; On 19th October, 1967, Bur Singh and Kapur Singh obtained a compromise decree against their brother Bur Singh for possession of 110 Kanals 14 Marlas of land. In the plaint filed by Bur Singh and Kapur Singh, it was pleaded that Bur Singh had gifted the land to them 10/12 years ago and a week before the filing of the suit illegally took back the possession; hence the suit for possession was filed. A written compromise deed was filed before the Court in which Bur Singh agreed that the land belonged to the plaintiffs and the suit be decreed.

3. Bur Singh died on 8-7-1982 and on 26th Aug. 1982 his two daughters Gurdev Kaur and Mehar Kaur filed a suit to avoid the compromise decree dt. 19-10-1967 on the plea that it was obtained by undue influence; their father had not made any gift as was pleaded in the earlier suit; and they were the next heirs to succeed to their father.

4. The suit was contested and it was pleaded that Bur Singh had signed compromise deed and had made statement in the Court duly signed by him, wherein he admitted their claim and prayed that the suit be decreed. On the basis of the written compromise and the statement made by Bur Singh, the suit for possession was decreed and they became owners of the suit land.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit after observing that the consent decree was suspicious as gift pleaded was not proved and the plea of gift was a fraud played on the Court.

6. On defendant s appeal, the learned Additional District Judge relied upon the compromise deed, Exhibit D3 and the judgment based on the compromise Exhibit D4 and keeping in view the decision in Shankar Sitaram Sontakke V/s. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, AIR 1954 SC 362, Bishun Deo Narain V/s. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280, and my judgment in Harpal Singh V/s. Ram Piari, 1981 Pun LJ 492 : (AIR 1981 NOC 210) came to the conclusion that since no fraud, misrepresentation or coercion was proved, the compromise decree was binding on Bur Singh and his daughters and it could not be reopened in the suit. It was also concluded that the compromise was effected in Oct. 1967 and Bur Singh died in July, 1982, and during this long period of 14/15 years, he did not challenge the compromise decree; thus it was binding on his daughters and in any event the title of the defendants matured in ownership by adverse possession. As a result, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed, which led to the filing of the second appeal.

7. Shri K.C. Puri, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has fairly admitted on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record that fraud, misrepresentation or coercion in obtaining the consent decree is not established. All the same, he has argued both the points, as noticed in the opening part of the judgment. We advert to these points one by one.

8. Shri K.C. Puri, Advocate, has argued that even if the consent decree was not obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or coercion, since it was not registered, it could not be received in evidence. If it is not received in evidence, the defendants had no title in the property and the suit is to be decreed. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the compromise or consent decree requires registration.

9. In order to decide this matter