1. This writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution is at the instance of the defendants challenging the order of the trial court dated 7/1/2015 whereby the trial court has held that the compromise decree is not admissible in evidence for want of registration.

2. In brief, in the suit filed by the respondents plaintiffs, at the stage of examination of the defendants witness Mohd. Hafiz, the petitioner wanted to exhibit compromise decree passed in CS No. 250 - A / 1984 dated 4/10/1985 in the matter of Habib Khan v. Pradyumn and the objection was raised by the respondent plaintiffs that the decree is required to be registered u/s. 17 of the Registration Act and since it was not registered, therefore, not admissible in evidence. Trial court has allowed the objection by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that S.17(1)(e) of the Registration Act is attracted when any right accrued under the decree is transferred or assigned whereas in the present case, the petitioner is claiming the right under the decree without there being any assignment or transfer. He further submits that even S.17(1)(b) & (c) are not attracted in view of S.17(2)(vi) because the comp