Registration exemption for compromise settlements over immovable property: an unregistered memorandum may still support a valid compromise decree.

A compromise agreement concerning immovable property did not require registration because it was not the operative instrument creating or declaring rights; it merely recorded the settlement terms for a compromise decree to be drawn up by the court. A memorandum prepared only to secure a decree that would itself declare the parties' rights falls within the exemption from registration, so the unregistered document could be admitted in evidence. Section 49 did not apply to exclude it on the footing that it was not the document effecting the rights in question. The compromise decree based on that settlement was therefore valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a compromise agreement relating to immovable property required registration under the Indian Registration Act and, if unregistered, could be excluded from evidence so as to invalidate the compromise decree.

Analysis: The document had to be construed as a whole and in the context of the surrounding disputes. It was not intended to operate by itself as the instrument declaring or creating rights in the immovable property; rather, it recorded the terms of settlement so that a compromise decree could be drawn up by the Court. A memorandum prepared merely to secure another document, namely a decree, which would itself declare the rights of the parties, falls within the exemption from registration. The decree itself, being a compromise decree properly recorded, satisfied the statutory requirement. Section 49 could not be invoked to exclude the document when it was not itself the operative instrument creating or declaring rights.

Conclusion: The compromise agreement did not require registration, was rightly admitted in evidence, and the decree based on it was valid.

---