https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84628 The SC held that the compromise decree acquired by the appellant through the suit did not require registration u/s 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, as it pertained to the subject matter of the suit. The consent decree did not operate as a conveyance to attract stamp duty under Article 22A of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as the appellant merely asserted pre-existing rights without creating new rights. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to possession of the subject land without interference from Respondent No.2 and to get his name recorded in revenue records. The appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2025 07:56:21 +0530 Tue, 07 Jan 2025 07:56:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84628 The SC held that the compromise decree acquired by the appellant through the suit did not require registration u/s 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, as it pertained to the subject matter of the suit. The consent decree did not operate as a conveyance to attract stamp duty under Article 22A of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as the appellant merely asserted pre-existing rights without creating new rights. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to possession of the subject land without interference from Respondent No.2 and to get his name recorded in revenue records. The appeal was allowed. Highlights Indian Laws Tue, 07 Jan 2025 07:56:21 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84628