By the Court.—Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Imran Syed, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents.

2. The appeal has been preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgement, order and decree dated 21.3.2017 by which the suit for declaration has been decreed in terms of the compromise paper No. 28Ga subject to its registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The plaintiff-appellant is aggrieved by the condition placed in the judgement and order whereunder it has been mandated to get the decree registered under Section 17 of the Act.

4. The argument of Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant is that the suit for declaration of rights in the property was filed in the light of the oral partition between the parties which had taken place on 3.6.2016 and was duly acted upon. Therefore, the declaration was with regard to the pre-existing rights and not in respect of any new rights of the plaintiff-appellant created by the decree in the suit property. Since the decree is not creating new rights it registration is no