ORDER

1.1The petitioners herein had filed C.S.No.640 of 2019 before the original side of this Court for partition and separate possession. On 06.02.2020, this suit came to be compromised and this Court passed a compromise decree. This Court specifically added that the compromise decree may be communicated by the Registry to the con- cerned Registering Authority, the second respondent herein. However, the second respondent failed to comply with the order dated 06.02.2020, following which the petitioners issued a legal notice dated 03.08.2020 on the respondents herein. There have been an earlier instance where in C.S.No.193 of 2014, a similar order was passed, by which a compromise decree in that suit was caused to reflect in the en- cumbrance certificate. In this regard, Sec.17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act as well as Section 89(2) of the Registration Act are significant. On the above pleadings, the pe- titioners seek a direction to the Registration Authority to enter the compromise de-

cree in the Register intended for recording the encumbrances.

1.2 The petitioners indeed have moved this Court again and on 11-11-2020, the learned Single Judge who passed the compromise decree, had made the following Order:

“2.

3. Upon considering the said submission by way of clarification, it is sufficient to state that the judgment and decree were directed to be communicated to the Office of the Joint Registrar so as to ensure compliance with all legal requirements and, in particular, the re- quirements of the Registration Act and the rules framed thereun-

der.”

The grievance of the petitioners have been that the Registration-authority demanded huge stamp duty and registration charges.

2. In the counter it is principally contended:

● Under Rule 89 of the Civil Rules of Practice, where any registered instrument affecting immovable property is cancelled by the Court, the Order or decree cancelling the same has to be communicated to the concerned Sub-Registry. Except the Orders or decrees falling under this class, in all other cases, de- crees can be registered only subject to time-limit provided under Sec.23 of the Registration Act.

● Secondly, any final decree passed in a partition suit have to be engrossed in non-judicial stamp papers.

● Thirdly, Sec.89 of the Registration Act provides for registration of only sale certificates issued by the Court and does not cover decrees passed in partition suits.

3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that inas- much as the Court Vide its Order dated 11-11-2020 has directed registration of the compromise decree that it had passed on 06-02-2020 in Book I, the Registering Au- thority is left with no choice but to register it in Book I consistent with the direction. He also emphasised that the case would fall under Sec. 89(2) of the Registration Act.

4. Per contra, Thiru.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader would sub- mit that Section 89(2) of the Registration Act pertains to registration of sale certific- ate granted by the Court, and that it neither includes, nor can it be equated to a compromise decree. For a compromise decree to reflect in the Encumbrance Certi- ficate, it may have to be registered in terms of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, upon payment of registration fee. He submitted that only Orders of attachment passed by civil court or statutory tribunals, or sale certificates issued under CPC, or any decree or order by which any registered instrument affecting any immovable property is cancelled, then in terms of relevant provisions of law they will be registered in Book I, but not others. And, the Courts are not empowered to direct the Registering Au- thority to enter Orders or decrees in Book-I without payment of registration fee. In- deed, the learned Single Judge in his Order dated 11-11-2020 has not directed regis- tration of the compromise decree in C.S.640 of 2019 ignoring the Registration Act or the Rules framed thereunder, but has directed its registrati