K.N.MISRA, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 24-2-1981 passed by Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow on the basis of compromise. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration alleging that in the family settlement, which took place before the filing of the suit, the property was divided in metes and bounds between the parties. It was, thus, prayed that by means of declaratory decree it be declared that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and in possession over the property shown by letters A and E in the list of site-plan annexed to the plaint by virtue of mutual family settlement mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint. The parties to the suit entered into a compromise which was filed and verified before the court. The learned court below accepted the compromise, but it passed an order which reads as follows :- "In this suit for declaration parties have filed compromise which has been verified before me. In terms of compromise parties have settled their disputes regarding immovable properties specifying particular portion of which particular person has to remain exclusive owner. Rights over the immovable properties are to be created and extinguished by observing provisions of Registration Act and, therefore, the present compromise between the parties is to be accepted subject to provisions of Registration Act and not in absolute terms." ORDER "Compromise A-14 is allowed subject to the provisions of Registration Act and suit is decided in terms of compromise A-14 which shall form part of the decree." Sd/- (B. N.Tewari) rightalight/>24-3-1981 Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, rightalight/>Lucknow.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the compromise which was filed in the present case between the parties relate to the property in suit, and, as such, it did not require registration in view of S.17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Learned counsel, thus, urged that the learned lower court erred in accepting the compromise subject to the provisions of the Registration Act. Learned counsel urged that the learned lower court appears to be labouring under the impression that since the compromise relates to immovable property of more than one hundred rupees value, and, as such, it would require registration. Learned counsel submitted that this view taken by the trial court appears to be erroneous in law and the decree should have been passed in the present suit without any such rider that it would be subject to the provisions of Registration Act. Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the said argument.
(3.) We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the averments contained in the plaint as well as in the compromise. The suit is based on the alleged family settlement entered into between the parties in respect of property in suit prior to the filing of the present suit.;