# Sukhdev Singh Majithiya & Ors v. Bhavnesh Kumar Jindal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1709
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-02
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 11867 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sukhdev-singh-majithiya-ors-v-bhavnesh-kumar-jindal-ors-53333
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950Article 227 - The Registration Act,1908Sections 17(1), 23 & 32 - The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908-Order XII, Rule 6---
"Whether the judgment and decree of the year
1988 needs registration under Section 17(1) of
the Act of 1908 being the compromise decree or
otherwise?"---
Compromise
decree
dated
1710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30.05.1988 and decree on the basis of
admission under Order XII, Rule 6 dated
12.08.1988 does not require registration in view
of exclusionary clause of Section 17(2) (vi) ---
Section 23 of clearly provides for time limit for
registration of an order or decree, which is four
months when it becomes final. In the instant
case, application has been moved after thirtyfive years, which is barred by provisions of
Section 23--- Section 32 clearly provides for the
person who shall present the document for
registration. The Act does not envisage any
provision requiring the Court to get the order or
decree registered--- The application moved by
the plaintiff was defective and not maintainable
due to non-joinder of necessary parties.

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

## Text

5 All. Sukhdev Singh Majithiya & Ors. Vs. Bhavnesh Kumar Jindal & Ors.
1709
in section 34(2)(a) can be permitted to file
affidavit in the form of evidence. However,
the same shall be allowed unless absolutely
necessary."

10. In the instant case, it is an
admitted position to both the parties that
award was made on 29.05.2018 i.e. prior to
the amendment made in Section 34(2)(a)
which came into effect from 30.08.2019.
The application moved on 22.10.2024 by
petitioner reveals that documents which are
being tried to be placed on record by
petitioner was discovered on 20.10.2024.
Apart from this fact, no other compelling
reason has been given for admitting the list
of documents appended with the said
application.

11. However, the court below has
wrongly treated the application to be an
application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

12. This Court finds that the court
below had wrongly interpreted the provisions
of Order XLI Rule 27 as it is applicable in the
case of an appeal where the party to an appeal
makes an application for production of
additional evidence at appellate stage. Section
34 is summary proceeding and is not an
appeal as court below has held. The
invocation of provisions of Order XLI Rule
27 by court below in rejecting the application
of petitioner is wholly misconceived. It seems
that court concerned does not know the scope
of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC as well as Section
34 of the Act of 1996.

13. The court below on the wrong
assumption has proceeded to reject the
application on the basis of Order XLI Rule
27 CPC.

14. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the order
09.12.2024 is hereby set aside. The writ
petition stands partly allowed.

15. The matter is remitted back to
court below to consider the application of
petitioner afresh in the light of the decision
of Apex Court in case of Alpine Housing
Development Corporation (supra) &
Emkay
Global
Financial
Services
Limited (supra), within a period of two
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order, strictly in
accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1709
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 11867 of 2024
(CIVIL)
With
Other Connected Cases

Sukhdev Singh Majithiya & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Bhavnesh Kumar Jindal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, Sri Shubham
Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.S. Dubey, Ms. Savita Dubey

Civil Law-The Constitution of India, 1950Article 227 - The Registration Act,1908Sections 17(1), 23 & 32 - The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908-Order XII, Rule 6---
"Whether the judgment and decree of the year
1988 needs registration under Section 17(1) of
the Act of 1908 being the compromise decree or
otherwise?"---
Compromise
decree
dated
1710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30.05.1988 and decree on the basis of
admission under Order XII, Rule 6 dated
12.08.1988 does not require registration in view
of exclusionary clause of Section 17(2) (vi) ---
Section 23 of clearly provides for time limit for
registration of an order or decree, which is four
months when it becomes final. In the instant
case, application has been moved after thirtyfive years, which is barred by provisions of
Section 23--- Section 32 clearly provides for the
person who shall present the document for
registration. The Act does not envisage any
provision requiring the Court to get the order or
decree registered--- The application moved by
the plaintiff was defective and not maintainable
due to non-joinder of necessary parties.

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. Civil Appeal No.14808 of 2024 (Mukesh Vs St.
of M.P. & anr.)

2. Mohd. Yusuf Vs Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 264

3. Khushi Ram Vs Nawal Singh (2021)16 SCC
279

4. Ripudaman Singh Vs Tikka Maheshwar Chand
(2021) 7 SCC 446

5. Bhoop Singh Vs Ram Singh (1995) 5 SCC 709

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. These five connected writ petitions
arise
out
of
common
order
dated
01.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Gorakhpur allowing Misc. Case
Nos.292 of 2023, 293 of 2023, 294 of
2023, 295 of 2023 and 296 of 2023 arising
out of Original Suit Nos. 316 of 1988, 318
of 1988, 323 of 1988, 324 of 1988 and 325
of 1988, directing for registration of decree
dated 30.05.1988 and 12.08.1988 under
Section 17(1) of Registration Act, 1908
(hereinafter called as "Act of 1908").

2. The facts, giving rise to these writ
petitions, are that one Bharat Bhushan
Jindal filed Original Suit No.316 of 1988
against Sardar Daleep Singh, Surjeet Singh
and Bramh Gyan Singh claiming relief of
declaration in respect of Plot No.51M
measuring 3.15 acres and also sought a
decree of permanent prohibitory injunction
restraining defendants from interfering in
his peaceful possession.

3. Similarly, Bhavnesh Kumar Jindal
instituted Original Suit No.318 of 1988 for
the same relief against Sardar Daleep
Singh, Surjeet Singh and Bramh Gyan
Singh. Suit No.323 of 1988 was instituted
by Vinod Kumar Jindal against the
aforesaid three defendants for the same
relief.

4. Suit No. 324 of 1988 was instituted
by Ramesh Kumar Jindal for the same
relief against Sardar Daleep Singh, Surjeet
Singh and Bramh Gyan Singh. While
Lachman Das Jindal filed Suit No.325 of
1988 against the aforesaid three persons for
the
same
relief
of
declaration
and
prohibitory permanent injunction in the
Court of Civil Judge, Gorakhpur.

5. All the five suits were contested by
the defendants and they filed their written
statement admitting the plaint averment.
However, in Suit No.316 of 1988, a
compromise application was filed on
30.05.1988 and the said suit was decreed
on the basis of compromise entered
between the parties on 30.05.1988 while
the other Suit Nos.318 of 1988, 323 of
1988, 324 of 1988 and 325 of 1988 were
decreed on 12.08.1988 on the basis of
admission made by the defendants in their
written statement under Order XII, Rule 6
C.P.C.
5 All. Sukhdev Singh Majithiya & Ors. Vs. Bhavnesh Kumar Jindal & Ors.
1711

6. Against the judgment and decree
dated 30.05.1988 and 12.08.1988, no
appeal was preferred by the defendants and
the judgment became final between the
parties inter se.

7. The plaintiff of the aforesaid suits
filed an application on 25.09.2023 before
the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Gorakhpur which was registered as Misc.
Case No.292 of 2023, 293 of 2023, 294 of
2023, 295 of 2023 and 296 of 2023 for
sending
the
file
to
the
District
Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue) Gorakhpur for
registration of decree under Section 17 of
Act of 1908. The application moved by
plaintiff has been allowed by Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Gorakhpur by the orders
impugned dated 01.05.2024, hence these
writ petitions.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that neither the consent decree
nor any judgment or decree of the Court
passed on the basis of admission of the
party is necessary to be registered under
Section 17(1) of the Act of 1908.
According to him, Section 17(2)(vi) of Act
of 1908 is an exclusion clause, which
provides that any decree or order of a Court
need not to be registered. It is also
contended that in the application moved by
plaintiff for registration of the document,
legal heirs of Surjeet Singh, who was
defendant No.2 in the suit, has not been
impleaded as a party and thus the order has
been
passed
without
impleading
the
necessary parties.

9. He then contended that Section 23
of Act of 1908 provides for the time for
presenting
documents
for
registration,
which is four months from the date of such
decree or order. Reliance has also been
placed upon provision of Section 32 of the
Act of 1908 i.e. person who shall present
document for registration. It is not the
Court who shall send the document for
registration. Reliance has been placed upon
judgment of Apex Court dated 20.12.2024
rendered in Civil Appeal No.14808 of
2024 (Mukesh vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Anr.).

10. Learned counsel for respondent
No.1 submitted that Section 17(1)(e) of Act
of 1908 requires registration of nontestamentary instruments that transfer or
assign Court's order, decree or award. This
includes cases where the decree, order or
award creates, declares, assigns, limits or
extinguish any right, title or interest in the
movable property. According to him, except
the compromise decree having been passed in
Suit No.316 of 1988, rest of the suits were
decreed on the basis of admission of the
defendants under Order XII, Rule 6 C.P.C.
According to him, provision of Section
17(2)(vi) would not apply and registration is
mandatory. It is also contended that as the
name of plaintiff was not being recorded in
revenue records despite the fact that decree is
of the year 1988, the application was moved
before the Court concerned for getting the
decree registered.

11. I have heard the respective
counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.

12. The issue for consideration before
this Court is, "whether the judgment and
decree of the year 1988 needs registration
under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1908
being
the
compromise
decree
or
otherwise?"

13. Before adverting to decide the
issue in hand, a glance of Section 17(1)(e),
1712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17(2)(vi), Sections 23 and 32 of the Act of
1908 would be necessary for the better
appreciation of the case which are extracted
hereas under :

"17.
Documents
of
which
registration
is
compulsory.-(1)
The
following documents shall be registered, if
the property to which they relate is situate
in a district in which, and if they have been
executed on or after the date on which, Act
No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration
Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act,
1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877,
or this Act came or comes into force,
namely:-

.....

(e) non-testamentary instruments
transferring or assigning any decree or
order of a Court or any award when such
decree or order or award purports or
operates to create, declare, assign, limit or
extinguish, whether in present or in future,
any right, title or interest, whether vested
or contingent, of the value of one hundred
rupees and upwards, to or in immovable
property:

Provided
that
the
State
Government may, by order published in the
Official Gazette, exempt from the operation
of this sub-section any lease executed in
any district, or part of a district, the terms
granted by which do not exceed five years
and the annual rents reserved by which do
not exceed fifty rupees."

.......

(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c)
of sub-section (1) applies to-

....

(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 proceeding;"

"23.
Time
for
presenting
documents.-Subject to the provisions
contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no
document other than a will shall be
accepted for registration unless presented
for that purpose to the proper officer within
four months from the date of its execution:

Provided that a copy of a decree
or order may be presented within four
months from the day on which the decree
or order was made, or, where it is
appealable, within four months from the
day on which it becomes final."

"32.
Persons
to
present
documents for registration.-Except in the
cases mentioned in sections 31, 88 and 89,
every document to be registered under this
Act,
whether
such
registration
be
compulsory or optional, shall be presented
at the proper registration-office,-

(a) by some person executing or
claiming under the same, or, in the case of
a copy of a decree or order, claiming under
the decree or order, or

(b) by the representative or
assign of such a person, or

(c) by the agent of such a person,
representative or assign, duly authorised
by
power-of-attorney
executed
and
authenticated
in
manner
hereinafter
mentioned."

14. Part III of Act of 1908 provides
for 'registrable documents'. Section 17
provides for compulsory registration of the
documents enumerated thereunder. Subsection (1)(e) of Section 17 provides for
registration
of
non-testamentary
instruments transferring or assigning any
decree or order of a Court or any award
when such decree or order or award
purports or operates to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish, whether in
present or in future, any right, title or
interest, whether vested or contingent, of
5 All. Sukhdev Singh Majithiya & Ors. Vs. Bhavnesh Kumar Jindal & Ors.
1713
the value of one hundred rupees and
upwards.

15. The compromise decree of
30.5.1988
as
well
as
decree
dated
12.08.1988 on the basis of admission of the
defendants is not covered under the
aforesaid provision.

16. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 is
the exclusion clause, which does not
require registration of certain documents.
Sub-section (2)(vi) of Act of 1908 provides
that any decree or order of a Court
including a compromise decree, which
forms subject-matter of the suit, does not
require registration. It is only in case of
compromise decree where property is not
the subject matter of suit, but compromise
has been arrived at between the parties, the
decree needs to be registered.

17. It is an admitted case to both the
parties that compromise entered between
the parties on 30.05.1988 was in respect of
the property which form subject-matter of
the suit. While other four suits filed by the
plaintiff was decreed on 12.08.1988 on the
basis of admission made in the written
statement by the defendants under Order
XII, Rule 6 C.P.C. Both the decree of
30.05.1988 and 12.08.1988 are exempted
from registration under the exclusion clause
of Section 17(2)(vi) of Act of 1908.

18. The Apex Court in Mohd.
Yusuf vs. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 264
had already held that "a compromise
decree comprising immovable property
other than which is the subject matter of
the
suit
or
proceeding
requires
registration, although any decree or order
of a court is exempted from registration
by virtue of Section 17(2)(vi) of the
Registration Act, 1908.".

19. In Khushi Ram vs. Nawal Singh
(2021)16 SCC 279, the Apex Court held
that
exclusionary
clause
of
Section
17(2)(vi) does not require registration of a
decree.

20. In Ripudaman Singh vs. Tikka
Maheshwar Chand (2021) 7 SCC 446, the
Apex Court relying upon the earlier
decision rendered in Bhoop Singh vs. Ram
Singh (1995) 5 SCC 709 held that there
was
no
requirement
for
compulsory
registration of a decree.

21. Relying upon earlier decisions,
Apex Court in Mukesh (supra) held as
under :

"Thus it could be discernible that
in order to fall under the exception of
Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, 1908, the
following condition must be satisfied:

(i) There must be a compromise
decree as per the terms of the compromise
without any collusion;

(ii). The compromise decree must
pertain to the subject property in the suit;
and

(iii) There must be a pre-existing
right over the subject property, and the
compromise decree should not create a
right afresh."

22. Thus, it is clear that compromise
decree dated 30.05.1988 as well as the
decree passed on the admission of the
defendants under Order XII, Rule 6 C.P.C.
does not require registration in view of
exclusionary clause of Section 17(2)(vi) of
the Act of 1908.

23. Moreover, Section 23 of Act of
1908 provides time limit for presentation of
a document for registration. The timeline
provided is four months from the date of
1714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
execution of the said document. Proviso to
Section 23 provides that a copy of a decree
or order may be presented within four
months from the day on which the decree
or order was made, or, where it is
appealable, within four months from the
day on which it becomes final.

24. It is an admitted case to both the
parties that the compromise decree of
30.5.1988 and 12.08.1988 was never
challenged before any Court and became
final inter se between the parties. It was for
the first time that the application was
moved for registering the decree on
25.09.2023 i.e. after 35 years. The
application moved by the plaintiff-decree
holder though being not maintainable under
Section 17(2)(vi), moreover, cannot be
looked into by the Court concerned in view
of proviso to Section 23 of the Act of 1908
as it provides a deadline of four months
from the date when the said order, or
decree becomes final.

25. Now, adverting to Section 32, I
find that it provides for the persons to
present documents for registration. In the
instant case, the application was moved
before Civil Judge (Senior Division)
seeking direction for getting the decree of
1988
registered
by
the
District
Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue) under Section 17 of
Act of 1908. Section 32(a) clearly provides
that document for registration has to be
presented by some person executing or
claiming under the same, or, in the case of
a copy of a decree or order, claiming under
the decree or order. Thus, sub-section (a) of
Section 32 clearly provides that it is the
decree holder, who has to present the
document for registration and there is no
provision for moving the application before
the Court for getting the same registered.

26. The Court below exceeded its
jurisdiction and directed for registration of
decree of 1988 which is against the
provision of Section 32 of the Act of 1908.

27. Lastly, it was contended that the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners
Surjeet Singh was defendant No.2 in the
suit but they were not made party in the
application moved before the Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Gorakhpur.

28. From perusal of the application
moved by the plaintiff before the Court
concerned, I find that the petitioners, who
were the necessary party, have been
deliberately excluded and thus application
moved
by
the
plaintiff
was
not
maintainable in view of non-joinder of
necessary party.

29. Thus, to sum up, I hold as under :-

(i) Compromise decree dated
30.05.1988 and decree on the basis of
admission under Order XII, Rule 6 C.P.C.
dated
12.08.1988
does
not
require
registration in view of exclusionary clause
of Section 17(2)(vi) of Act of 1908.

(ii) Section 23 of Act of 1908
clearly
provides
for
time
limit
for
registration of an order or decree, which is
four months when it becomes final. In the
instant case, application has been moved
after thirty-five years, which is barred by
provisions of Section 23 of Act of 1908.

(iii) Section 32 of Act of 1908
clearly provides for the person who shall
present the document for registration. The
Act does not envisage any provision
requiring the Court to get the order or
decree registered.

(iv) The application moved by the
plaintiff was defective and not maintainable
due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
5 All. Shailendra Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P.
1715

30. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that order
dated 01.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gorakhpur allowing the
Misc. Case No.292 of 2023, 293 of 2023,
294 of 2023, 295 of 2023 and 296 of 2023
arising out of Original Suit Nos. 316 of
1988, 318 of 1988, 323 of 1988, 324 of
1988 and 325 of 1988 are totally illegal and
therefore set aside.

31. All the writ petitions stand
allowed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1715
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7898 of 2017
Connected With
Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2018

Shailendra Kushwaha ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, Sri Jitendra Kumar,
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Sri Laxmi Narayan
Rathour, Sri Rajendra Kumar Pandey, Sri Ranjit
Kumar Yadav, Sri Sushil Kumar, Sri Vinay
Kumar Nigam, Sri Ashok Kummar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363, 366 & 376-D - Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
Section 4 - Evidence - Sole testimony of
prosecutrix
-
Contradictory
St.ments
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Absence of
corroboration - Victim's first St.ment
exonerating the accused and second
St.ment implicating them after 40 days -
Unexplained
delay,
material
improvements
and
improbabilities
in
prosecution case - Denial by informant of
having lodged FIR - Held, conviction
cannot
rest
on
inconsistent,
uncorroborated, and unreliable testimony
of prosecutrix - Benefit of doubt -
Accused acquitted. (Paras 28, 33, 34, 37,
39, and 41)

HELD:
Yet the informant 'M' P.W.-2 has simultaneously
accepted that the Tehrir paper No. 5Ka, does
not bear her signature and she had also not
submitted it to the police. It is pertinent to
mention here that on the basis of informant's
application (paper No. 5Ka) F.I.R regarding the
incident has been registered on 08.04.2014 at
11:30 a.m. Since the informant has denied that
the basis of F.I.R i.e. her purported application
(paper No. 5Ka) was not given by her, as such
the whole prosecution story becomes doubtful.
It is true that F.I.R is not a substantive piece of
evidence, but it's contents are required to be
proved in accordance with law, which the
prosecution
has
failed
to
prove
beyond
reasonable doubt in this case. This will become
apparent from our subsequent analysis. (Para
28)

From the perusal of the first St.ment of the
victim 'X' recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C,
proved by the accused as Ex. Kha-1, it is evident
that she had gone with accused Malik Chandra
of her own sweet will. She had thus eloped with
him and gone to Gujarat, where she resided
with him and no physical relations established
between them. The victim has mentioned in her
St.ment that the accused Malik Chandra had not
raped her and she wanted to stay with him. The
victim 'X' had also told the Doctor P.W.-3 at the
time of her medical examination, (P.W.-3 has
also proved in her examination-in-chief) that on
31.03.2014 at 05:00 a.m. she had left her house
with a boy and gone by a truck to Auraiya, who
had left her in the way, and then the son-in-law
of her aunt had taken her to Gujarat, where she
had solemnized marriage in a temple with him.
Both the above St.ments have been proved in
accordance with law, according to which, the
accused Shailendra Kushwaha, Manvendra Singh