A compromise decree passed by a court would ordinarily be covered by Section 17(1)(b) but sub-section (2) of Section 17 provides for an exception for any decree or order of a court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding. Thus, by virtue of sub-section 2(vi) of Section 17 any decree or order of a court does not require registration. In sub-clause (vi) of sub-section 2, one category is excepted from sub-clause (vi), a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding. Thus, by conjointly reading Section 17(1)(b) and Section 17(2)(vi), it is clear that a compromise decree comprising immovable property other than which is the subject matter, of the suit or proceeding requires registration, although any decree or order of a court is exempted from registration by virtue of Section 17(2)(vi). Mohd. Yusuf v. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 264.
Tag Archives: Compromise Decree
Compromise Decree Comprising of Immovable Property Other Than That Which is subject matter of Suit or Proceeding – Requires Registration
In Pulvarthi Venkata Subba Rao v. Valluri Jagannadha Rao, AIR 1967 SC 591, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically repelled the contention that a compromise decree would operate as res-judicata, though accepted that it may create estoppel by conduct—
“The compromise decree was not a decision by the Court. It was the acceptance by the Court of something to which the parties had agreed. It has been said that a compromise decree merely sets the seal of the Court on the agreement of the parties. The court did not decide anything. Nor can it be said that a decision of the court was implicit in it. Only a decision by the Court could be res judicata, whether statutory under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or constructive as a matter of public policy on which the entire doctrine rests.“
A full bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High court in Parma Nand v. Champa Lal, AIR 1956 All 225, explained the various types of estoppel, as follows:
“Under the English, estoppel is of three kinds; estoppel is of three kinds; estoppel by judgment, estoppel by deed and and estoppel by pais.”
In Baldev Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors India (P) Ltd., (1969) 2 SCC 201, the Hon’ble Apex Court again specifically held that “a consent decree, according to the decisions of the Court, does not operate as Res Judicata, because a consent decree is merely the record of a contract between the parties to a suit, to which is superadded the seal of the court. A matter in contest in a suit may operate as res judicata only if there is an adjudication by the Court: the terms of Section 11 of the Code leave no scope for a contrary view. Manoj v. Smt. Devendri Devi, 2019 (137) ALR 445.