Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Sukhdev Singh Majithiya And 3 Others – Appellants
Versus
Bhavnesh Kumar Jindal And 4 Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 11867 of 2024, Matters Under Article 227 No. 11874 of 2024, MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11876 of 2024, MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11877 of 2024, MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13624 of 2024
Decided on : 02-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Adya Prasad Tewari,Shubham Dwivedi
For the Respondent: R S Dubey, Savita Dubey

Compromise decrees and decrees based on admissions do not require registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, and applications for registration filed after the statutory time limit are not maintainable.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17(1), 17(2)(vi), 23, and 32 - Writ petitions challenging the order allowing registration of decrees from 1988 - Court held that compromise decree and decrees based on admissions do not require registration under Section 17(2)(vi) - Application for registration filed after 35 years is barred by Section 23 - Non-joinder of necessary parties renders the application defective. (Paras 12, 29, 30)

(B) Jurisdiction - Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing registration of decrees contrary to the provisions of the Act. (Paras 26, 30)

Facts of the case:
Five writ petitions arose from a common order allowing registration of decrees from 1988. The plaintiffs sought registration of decrees based on compromise and admissions, which were contested by the defendants on grounds of non-registration necessity and procedural defects.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the decrees did not require registration and the application was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties and the time-bar under Section 23.

Issues: The main issue was whether the 1988 decrees required registration under Section 17(1) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the decrees were exempt from registration under Section 17(2)(vi) and that the application was barred by time limits set forth in Section 23.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. These five connected writ petitions arise out of common order dated 01.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur allowing Misc. Case Nos.292 of 2023, 293 of 2023, 294 of 2023, 295 of 2023 and 296 of 2023 arising out of Original Suit Nos. 316 of 1988, 318 of 1988, 323 of 1988, 324 of 1988 and 325 of 1988, directing for registration of decree dated 30.05.1988 and 12.08.1988 under Section 17(1) of Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1908”).

2. The facts, giving rise to these writ petitions, are that one Bharat Bhushan Jindal filed Original Suit No.316 of 1988 against Sardar Daleep Singh, Surjeet Singh and Bramh Gyan Singh claiming relief of declaration in respect of Plot No.51M measuring 3.15 acres and also sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession.

3. Similarly, Bhavnesh Kumar Jindal instituted Original Suit No.318 of 1988 for the same relief against Sardar Daleep Singh, Surjeet Singh and Bramh Gyan Singh. Suit No.323 of 1988 was instituted by Vinod Kumar Jindal against the aforesaid three defendants for the same relief.

4. Suit No. 324 of 1988 was instituted by Ramesh Kumar Jindal for the same relief against Sardar Daleep Singh, Surjeet Singh and Bramh Gyan Singh. While Lachman Das Jindal filed Suit No.325 of 1988 against the aforesaid three persons for the same relief of declaration and prohibitory permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Gorakhpur.

5. All the five suits were contested by the defendants and they filed their written statement admitting the plaint averment. However, in Suit No.316 of 1988, a compromise application was filed on 30.05.1988 and the said suit was decreed on the basis of compromise entered between the parties on 30.05.1988 while the other Suit Nos.318 of 1988, 323 of 1988, 324 of 1988 and 325 of 1988 were decreed on 12.08.1988 on the basis of admission made by the defendants in their written statement under Order XII, Rule 6 C.P.C.

6. Against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1988 and 12.08.1988, no appeal was preferred by the defendants and the judgment became final between the parties inter se.

7. The plaintiff of the aforesaid suits filed an application on 25.09.2023 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gorakhpur which was registered as Misc. Case No.292 of 2023, 293 of 2023, 294 of 2023, 295 of 2023 and 296 of 2023 for sending the file to the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Gorakhpur for registration of decree under Section 17 of Act of 1908. The application moved by plaintiff has been allowed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gorakhpur by the orders impugned dated 01.05.2024, hence these writ petitions.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the consent decree nor any judgment or decree of the Court passed on the basis of admission of the party is necessary to be registered under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1908. According to him, Section 17(2)(vi) of Act of 1908 is an exclusion clause, which provides that any decree or order of a Court need not to be registered. It is also contended that in the application moved by plaintiff for registration of the document, legal heirs of Surjeet Singh, who was defendant No.2 in the suit, has not been impleaded as a party and thus the order has been passed without impleading the necessary parties.

9. He then contended that Section 23 of Act of 1908 provides for the time for presenting documents for registration, which is four months from the date of such decree or order. Reliance has also been placed upon provision of Section 32 of the Act of 1908 i.e. person who shall present document for registration. It is not the Court who shall send the document for registration. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of Apex Court dated 20.12.2024 rendered in Civil Appeal No.14808 of 2024 ( Mukesh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.).

10. Learned coun