1990 PLP 2404 (MLD)

Haji Arsala Khan plaintiff/petitioner herein sued Dr. Abdus Sattar Khan, defendant/respondent herein, for declaration that the suit shops bearing Survey No.225/CA and 225/CB situated near Char Bijli Chowk towards the South Sokari Gate, Bannu City, as per boundaries mentioned‑ in the plaint, are owned and possessed by him‑ on account of purchase from the defendant/respondent and that he is left with no right or interest therein. The defendant/respondent in his written statement averred that he had entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff/petitioner but a sum of Rs.1,000 was still outstanding against him and agreed to the passing of the decree in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner provided the balance of sale consideration was paid to him. The parties submitted written compromise on 7‑2‑1989 whereby the defendant acknowledged the receipt of the entire sale consideration, the delivery of possession to the plaintiff/petitioner on the spot and agreed to the passing of the decree against him in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. The learned trial Judge, however, vide his judgment and decree dated 7‑2‑1989 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit was based on collusion in order to avoid the payment of Government dues. Dissatisfied with the same the plaintiff/petitioner filed appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Bannu who accepted the same and passed the decree for declaration prayed for but directed the plaintiff/petitioner to get the registration of the decree by Sub‑Registrar after payment of the prescribed fee on the sale amount of Rs. three lac within two months of the date of the order, otherwise the decree was to be considered null and void and the suit stand dismissed. Hence the instant revision petition by the plaintiff/petitioner calling in question the order of the Appellate Court dated 13‑5‑1989.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the attorney of the defendant/respondent in person and have perused the record of the case.

3. The attorney of the defendant/respondent has conceded that the defendant/respondent has transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and that the sale is complete in all respects. The question requiring determination, therefore, simply is as to whether a decree passed on the compromise requires registration under section 17 of the Registration Act or any other section thereof. Subsection (1) of section 17 of the Act ibid enumerates the documents which require compulsory registration and subsection (2) thereof makes exception thereto. Clauses (i) and (vi) of subsection (2) are somewhat relevant to the point in issue and they are being reproduced for convenience sake:‑‑ (i) any composition deed; or (vi) 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 proceedings; It is thus apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid provision of law that neither composition deed nor decree or order of the Court based thereon require compulsory registration except those decrees which include immovable property other than that which is the subject‑matter of the suit or proceedings. Obviously the compromise in the case in hand exclusively pertained to the suit shops and did not attract the later part of clause (vi) of subsection (2) of section 17 of the Act ibid and in consequence did not necessitate compulsory registration. It appears that the learned appellate Court misinterpreted the above statutory provisions of law and committed illegality in directing the registration of the declaratory decree passed by it.

4. For the foregoing reason the instant revision petition is accepted, the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court dated 13‑5‑1989 is modified and a declaratory decree as prayed for is passed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner against the defendant/respondent, with no order as to costs. AA./1113/P Revision accepted.