S.Vinayagam v. E.Nagendiran
2026:MHC:3144 · S.A. No.775 of 2005
Coram: Justice R. Sakthivel
Registration Act, 1908 — s.17(2)(vi) — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 23 Rule 3 — Compromise decree — Pre-existing right — Res judicata — Estoppel — Adverse possession — Ouster — Injunction simpliciter —
Registration Act, 1908 — s.17(2)(vi) — Compromise decree declaring pre-existing right needs no registration —
Held: A compromise decree which declares a pre-existing right and creates no new right, title or interest in praesenti, and which comprises only property that is the subject-matter of the suit, requires no registration and would bind the parties even without registration. (¶17, 18)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Compromise decree — Estoppel — Res judicata inapplicable —
Held further: A compromise decree continues to bind the parties unless set aside or declared invalid as per law and can be attacked only in the same proceedings. Where no issue was adjudicated, res judicata does not come into picture, but estoppel does. (¶16, 19)
Adverse possession — Ouster — Pleading and proof of necessary animus —
Held further: Adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by admitting the title of the actual title holder and holding possession adverse thereto with the necessary animus; mutation of the Revenue Records and payment of taxes do not suffice. Second Appeal dismissed. (¶25, 30)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 17Coming to registration of Compromise Decree, the compromise between the parties thereto was solely in respect of the suit properties therein. Further, as stated supra, Elumalai Naicker and Pachiappa Naicker filed the said Suit claiming pre-existing rights as nearest reversioners of Kanniappa Naicker while questioning the validity of the alienations made by Ellammal. Hence, there is no need to register the Compromise Decree and Page No.20 of 36 it would bind the parties thereto even without registration as registration in such cases are optional as per Section 17 (2) (vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads thus: "PART III
Paragraph 17Documents of which registration is compulsory.-
Paragraph 18Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ripudaman Singh -vs- Tikka Maheshwar Chand, reported in (2021) 7 SCC 446, following Bhoop Singh's Case [cited supra], held that when a Compromise Decree does not create any new right and is only in respect of any pre-existing rights, it does not require registration. Relevant extract reads thus: "14. In respect of a question whether the decree requires registration or not, this Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh [Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 709] held that decree or order including compromise decree creating new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of value of Rs 100 or above is compulsory for registration. It was not the case of any pre-existing right but right that has been created by the decree alone. This Court explained both the situation, where a party has pre-existing right and where no such right exists. It was observed as under : (SCC pp. 714-16, paras 13, 16 & 18-19) Page No.22 of 36 “13. In other words, the court must enquire whether a document has recorded unqualified and unconditional words of present demise of right, title and interest in the property and included the essential terms of the same; if the document, including a compromise memo, extinguishes the rights of one and seeks to confer right, title or interest in praesenti in favour of the other, relating to immovable property of the value of Rs 100 and upwards, the document or record or compromise memo shall be compulsorily registered. *** 16. We have to view the reach of clause (vi), which is an exception to sub-section (1), bearing all the aforesaid in mind. We would think that the exception engrafted is meant to cover that decree or order of a court, including a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise, which declares the pre-existing right and does not by itself create new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or upwards. Any other view would find the mischief of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, embedded in the decree or order. *** 18. The legal position qua clause (vi) can, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, be summarised as below: (1) Compromise decree if bona fide, in the sense that the compromise is not a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the law relating to registration, would not Page No.23 of 36 require registration. In a converse situation, it would require registration. (2) If the compromise decree were to create for the first time right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or upwards in favour of any party to the suit the decree or order would require registration. (3) If the decree were not to attract any of the clauses of sub- section (1) of Section 17, as was the position in the aforesaid Privy Council and this Court's cases, it is apparent that the decree would not require registration. (4) If the decree were not to embody the terms of compromise, as was the position in Lahore case, benefit from the terms of compromise cannot be derived, even if a suit were to be disposed of because of the compromise in question. (5) If the property dealt with by the decree be not the “subject- matter of the suit or proceeding”, clause (vi) of sub-section (2) would not operate, because of the amendment of this clause by Act 21 of 1929, which has its origin in the aforesaid decision of the Privy Council, according to which the original clause would have been attracted, even if it were to encompass property not litigated. 19. Now, let us see whether on the strength of the decree passed in Suit No. 215 of 1973, the petitioner could sustain his case as put up in his written statement in the present suit, Page No.24 of 36 despite the decree not having been registered. According to us, it cannot for two reasons: (1) The decree having purported to create right or title in the plaintiff for the first time that is not being a declaration of pre- existing right, did require registration. It may also be pointed out that the first suit cannot really be said to have been decreed on the basis of compromise, as the suit was decreed “in view of the written statement filed by the defendant admitting the claim of the plaintiff to be correct”. Decreeing of suit in such a situation is covered by Order 12 Rule 6, and not by Order 23 Rule 3, which deals with compromise of suit, whereas the former is on the subject of judgment on admissions.” *** 18. In view of enunciation of law in Bhoop Singh case [Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 709] , we find that the judgment [Tikka Maheshwar Chand v. Ripudaman Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine HP 3808] and decree of the High Court holding that the decree requires compulsory registration is erroneous in law. The compromise was between the two brothers consequent to death of their father and no right was being created in praesenti for the first time, thus not requiring compulsory registration. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed." Page No.25 of 36