Registration of compromise decrees over immovable property under Section 17(2)(vi) is referred to a larger Bench for clarity.

A compromise decree affecting immovable property was analysed under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, on the footing that registration is required where the decree relates to property not already the subject-matter of the suit. The first appellate court's finding that the earlier decree was not collusive was treated as a factual finding with no basis for interference. The analysis also noted uncertainty over whether the exception depends on the decree merely declaring a pre-existing right, and observed an apparent conflict between the cited decisions. The matter was therefore referred to a larger Bench for authoritative interpretation of the provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the compromise decree relating to immovable property required registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, and whether the apparent conflict between earlier decisions on the scope of that provision required reference to a larger Bench.

Analysis: The first appellate court's finding that the earlier decree was not collusive was treated as a finding of fact and no reason was found to interfere with that conclusion. On the registration issue, the provision was read according to its plain language, namely that registration is required where a decree relates to immovable property that was not the subject-matter of the suit. The reasoning expressed doubt about the view that the exception turns on whether the decree merely declares a pre-existing right, and noted an apparent inconsistency between the two cited decisions on the point.

Outcome: The matter was referred to a larger Bench for authoritative interpretation of the exception in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908.

---