Compromise decrees involving properties not subject-matter of the suit require compulsory registration and stamp duty.

The petitioners filed a civil suit (C.S. No. 32A/2016) seeking a declaration and permanent injunction for two land surveys (Nos. 435 and 436) in Village Chitahri, based on an alleged oral partition by their grandfather.

The suit was resolved via a compromise decree dated 08.08.2017, which included seven additional land surveys not part of the original suit.

The trial court held that the decree would only be effective upon registration and payment of stamp duty.

The lands fall within a notified area under Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ("the Act"), where Section 20 bars the accrual of new rights post-notification (issued in the year 2000).

The petitioners challenged the registration condition, fearing the state would refuse registration due to the statutory bar.

1. Whether the condition imposed by the trial Court requiring registration of the compromise decree is illegal or violative of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908?

2. Whether, in view of the bar on accrual of rights under Section 20 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, a mandamus can be issued to the respondents to register the compromise decree?

Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates registration for instruments creating rights in immovable property.

Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, exempts court decrees unless they comprise property not originally part of the suit.

Compromise decrees involving non-suit property require compulsory registration, as affirmed in *Mukesh v. State of M.P.* (2024).

Section 20 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, prohibits the acquisition of rights in notified areas except through "succession, testamentary or intestate".

Principles from *Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna* (2009) distinguish "partition" (adjustment of pre-existing rights) from "succession" (devolution of title from a deceased person).

The Court observed that while decrees are generally exempt from registration, the petitioners’ compromise decree included seven survey numbers that were not part of the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 32A/2016.

Therefore, under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, the trial court correctly mandated registration as ownership was being transferred in non-suit lands.

Regarding the wildlife notification bar, the petitioners argued their rights flowed from "succession" (exempt under Section 20).

However, the Court found the petitioners’ claim was specifically based on an "oral partition" during their grandfather’s lifetime, not the legal devolution of an estate upon death.

Since partition involves a separation of shares inter-vivos and not succession, the exemption in Section 20 did not apply.

Consequently, the decree attempted to create new rights in a protected area after the statutory cutoff in the year 2000.

It held that the condition for registration was legally sound because the decree included properties beyond the scope of the original suit.

Furthermore, a mandamus for registration could not be issued because the acquisition of rights via partition does not qualify as "succession" under Section 20 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, making the registration a violation of the statutory bar.

The writ petition was dismissed, and all interim reliefs were vacated.