Summary
The Supreme Court held that a compromise decree concerning the very property forming the subject of the earlier suit did not require registration and could be exhibited. The High Court’s reliance on the proposition that adverse possession could only be a defence was unsustainable after that proposition had been overruled. No collusion was alleged, and the precedent concerning a collusive decree creating a new title was distinguishable.
Issues
- Whether the earlier compromise decree concerning the suit property required registration before being admitted in evidence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(2)(vi), Registration Act, 1908The exemption for court decrees applied because the compromise decree concerned the subject matter of the suit; the exception for property outside that subject matter did not apply. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 13, 14)
Held
- The compromise decree dealt with the property forming the subject matter of the suit itself. It therefore fell within the exemption for court decrees under Section 17(2)(vi), rather than the exception for compromise decrees covering other immovable property. (¶¶ 6, 13, 14)
- The High Court’s premise that a plaintiff could not rely on adverse possession to obtain a declaration was displaced by Ravinder Kaur Grewal, which had expressly overruled Gurdwara Sahib and recognised affirmative relief on perfected adverse possession. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Bhoop Singh did not require exclusion of this decree: its reasons relating to a collusive decree creating title for the first time were inapplicable, and no allegation of collusion was made here. (¶¶ 7, 11, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed. Trial court order and High Court judgment set aside; the trial court directed to exhibit the compromise decree dated 4 October 1985.