JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. Smt Kastoori, respondent No. 4 was a co-sharer along with the seven appellants and Kundan Singh, the father of respondents 5 to 8, in the khewat of village Kaithala, tehsil and district Bulandshahr. She had a one-third share in the khewat. Khata No. 11, appurtenant to this khewat was a sirholding of 25 plots. Smt. Kastoori had a one-third share in the sir khata, the rest belonged to the appellants and other respondents. The appellants and Kundan Singh field a suit (No. 120 of 1968) in the court of Munsif, Bulandshahr, for an injunction against Smt. Kastoori. The suit related to 9 plots of Khata No. 11. It was prayed in the suit that Smt. Kastoori, the defendant, be restrained from taking possession of the crops standing on the nine plots, in pursuance of the order of the criminal Court or from cutting the crop, and in case the defendant cuts away or takes possession of the crop, a decree for recovery of Rs. 400/- as damages, and for possession over the plots be granted to the plaintiff. The suit was valued at Rs. l,000/- which was stated in the plaint to consist of Rs. 400/- as the price of the crop and Rs. 600/- being 20 times the annual rent. This suit ended in a compromise decree on 9-12-1950. Under the compromise the plaintiffs were given the right to remain in possession in perpetuity to the exclusion of Smt. Kastoori, on payment of a lump sum of Rs. 5,000/- and a sum of Rs. 90/- per annum to her, and after her death to her heirs, Smt. Kastoori was to continue as a co-sharer in the khewat and entitled to receive compensation from the Government on the abolition of Zamindari. 2. On 7th July, 1958, Smt. Kastoori, however, executed a deed of sale transferring her rights in the aforesaid nine plots in favour of respondents 5 to 8, (whose father Kundan Singh), was one of the plaintiffs in the suit for injunction. 3. 2. On 7th July, 1958, Smt. Kastoori, however, executed a deed of sale transferring her rights in the aforesaid nine plots in favour of respondents 5 to 8, (whose father Kundan Singh), was one of the plaintiffs in the suit for injunction. 3. On commencement of consolidation operations the appellants filed an objection praying that the name of Smt. Kastoori as well as respondents 5 to 8 should be expunged from khata No. 11 because she lost her sir rights by the compromise decree, whereafter she had no rights which she could validly transfer to respondents 5 to 8. The Consolidation Officer directed that the name of Kastoori be expunged but the names of respondents 5 to 8 be mutated over khata No. 11. On behalf of the respondents it was urged in appeal that the compromise was in the nature of a lease or a licence. The Settlement Officer rejected this submission. He held that the compromise was much more than that because under it Smt. Kastoori had transferred all rights in the sir land and only retained the proprietary rights in the khewat. Smt. Kastoori had a one-third in the sir khata which was represented by the 9 plots involved in the injunction suit. After the compromise Smt. Kastoori had no rights or interest left in the sir khata which she could validly transfer to respondents 5 to 8. On this view, he allowed the appeal and directed the expungement of the names of respondents 5 to 8, in addition to Smt. Kastoori. 4. The respondents filed a second appeal. The Deputy Director held that under the compromise only possession of certain lands of sir khata was transferred. Her sir rights were not affected and so she became bhumidhar after the abolition of Zamindari and her sir rights in the land subsisted. The status of the vendees was more or less like thakeclar or licensee. They were not tenants. As a bhumidhar she could validly execute a transfer. Respondents 2 to 5 were entitled to be mutated over the plots in dispute. On this view the Consolidation Officer's order was restored. The matter was taken to the Director in revision. He held that both the parties were co-sirholders of the plots of khata No. 11. Some of the sir holders had filed a suit for injunction which ended in a compromise decree. On this view the Consolidation Officer's order was restored. The matter was taken to the Director in revision. He held that both the parties were co-sirholders of the plots of khata No. 11. Some of the sir holders had filed a suit for injunction which ended in a compromise decree. Under the compromise Smt. Kastoori's sir rights were not extinguished. They remained in tact at the time of the vesting. She became a bhumidhar and she could validly execute tire sale-deed. The revision was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved the appellants instituted a writ petition in this court. Learned single Judge dismissed it on the view that the sole question was with regard to the interpretation of the compromise decree. In the opinion of the learned Judge, a reading of the compromise decree did not show that the interpretation given by the Deputy Director and the Director was patently erroneous. Hence this appeal. 6. It appears that both parties to the compromise decree were co-sharers in the sir khata. The nine plots in dispute were treated as constituting Smt. Kastoori's one-third share. The compromise decree provided: (1) That the plots in dispute shall in future remain in possession of the plaintiffs. He defendants shall have no connection with their possession. The defendants will not be able to cultivate them. (2) That in lieu of possession the defendant has received from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in front of the court. (3) That the plaintiffs shall continue to pay Rs. 90/- per year (Rs. 45/- to be payable in the month of Jeth and Rs. 45/- in the month of Magh) to the defendant or her heirs. If they do not so pay the plaintiffs will be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- in lieu of profits. (4) The defendant (namely Smt. Kastoori) shall continue to remain a co-sharer in the khewat as before and after her death her heirs will be similarly co-shares. The defendant shall be entitled to receive the aforesaid profit as provided even if zamindari system is abolished in addition to the compensation from the Government. 7. The other terms are not material. A plain reading of this compromise shows that Smt. Kastoori gave up her right of exclusive possession as a sir-holder in favour of the plaintiffs of that suit who were co-sirholders. 7. The other terms are not material. A plain reading of this compromise shows that Smt. Kastoori gave up her right of exclusive possession as a sir-holder in favour of the plaintiffs of that suit who were co-sirholders. The plaintiffs were entitled to remain in exclusive posse s:on and enjoy the plots for ever. To acquire this right they paid a sum of Rs. 5,000-and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 90/- per year as profits. In default, she was not entitled to re-enter, but only to damages as profits of Rs. 200/- per year. Smt. Kastoori continued to retain her proprietary share in the khewat. 8. The principal privileges of sir are right to exclusive cultivation (subject to accountability of profits to other co-proprietors) and the right to remain in exclusive cultivatory possession as an ex-proprietary tenant on transfer of proprietary rights. Other minor privileges like liability to pay a lesser rental on division of profits or the right to let out to tenants (called tenants of sir) are also dependent on the sir-holder retaining its cultivatory possession. Thus retention of cultivatory possession is the source for the creation of various privileges known as sir rights. 9. If a sirholder transfers possession on condition that she will have no right to cultivate at all and at any time in future, she cannot retain or regain cultivatory possession. She would not be able to claim ex-proprietary tenancy. She deprives herself of the right to let out sir land to tenants. 10. In law, on such a transfer, the transferor or sirholder retains nothing which could be recognised as sir right. The fourth clause of the compromise decree that Smt. Kastoori shall continue to remain a co-sharer in the khewat as before and will be entitled to profits as well as compensation on the abolition of zamindari system supports the inference that the parties intended that Smt. Kastoori will no longer retain sir rights. Read as a whole, the compromise decree effected an extinguishment of Smt. Kastoori's sir rights. 11. The compromise could not be deemed a transfer of the sir rights because Sec. 9(2), U. P. Tenancy Act prohibits transfer of sir rights except by gift to a person to whom the proprietary right in the sir is gifted of by exchange with an other sirholder. 11. The compromise could not be deemed a transfer of the sir rights because Sec. 9(2), U. P. Tenancy Act prohibits transfer of sir rights except by gift to a person to whom the proprietary right in the sir is gifted of by exchange with an other sirholder. Since the compromise i decree did not effect a transfer in any of these two permissible modes, Smt. Kastoori's sir rights could not vest in the plaintiffs of that suit as if they have been transferred to them. 12. With the extinguishment of Smt. Kastoori's sir rights in the 9 plots they became non-sir or khalsa land. Since the plaintiffs of that suit admittedly cultivated I these plots ever since the compromise decree, the plots became plots ever since the compromise decree, the plots became their khudkasht. On that basis they became bhumidhars on abolition of Zamindari. 13. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that under the compromise decree the appellants became licensees. In Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R. N. Kapur, AIR 1959 S.C. 1262 it was held that if a party gets exclusive possession of property with an interest in it, he is not a licensee. In the present case not only possession was transferred but along with it the right to enjoy the plots was also given to the plaintiffs not that suit. They did not become licensees. The compromise decree did not create a lease either. There is no provision for rent. No interest subordinate to smt. Kastoori was created under it. The plaintiffs of that suit were co-sharers in the sir khata along with Smt. Kastoori. In this context an agreement to transfer possession made between co-sharers would not create a leasehold interest. 14. Mr. Gaur appearing for the respondents argued that the compromise decree required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. In the alternative, it was suggested that it should have been attested under Section 57 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Sec. 57 provides for attestation in lieu of registration of any transaction which requires registration under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, or under any provisions of the U. P. Tenancy Act. No provision of the U. P. Tenancy Act requires an agreement providing for abandonment or extinguishment of sir rights to be registered. Sec. 57 provides for attestation in lieu of registration of any transaction which requires registration under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, or under any provisions of the U. P. Tenancy Act. No provision of the U. P. Tenancy Act requires an agreement providing for abandonment or extinguishment of sir rights to be registered. Clause (vi) of Section 17 (2) of the Indian Registration Act exempts a decree or order of court relating to immovable property which is the subject-matter of the suit from the application of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 17 (1). These clauses provide for transfer of rights except by way of a lease. Leases are covered by clause (d). Since the document is not a lease it will be within the purview of clause (vi) of Section 17 (2), and it will operate even though it is not registered. 15. In our opinion, Smt. Kastoori lost her sir rights under the compromise decree. The land became non-sir land. Since it was cultivated by the plaintiffs of that suit, it became their khudkasht. As khudkasht-holders the appellants and Kundan Singh acquired bhumidhari rights under the Zamindari Abolition Act. Smt. Kastoori's sir rights having extinguished under the compromise decree and her proprietary rights having vanished with the abolition of zamindari, she was left with no rights which she could validly transfer to the respondents by the sale-deed of 7th July, 1958. The respondents did not acquire any right in virtue of that deed of sale. 16. Kundan Singh, the father of respondents 5 to 8, was one of the plaintiffs in the suit which ended in a compromise decree. He is not a party before us. There is no allegation that he is dead. No claim was, at any stage of the present litigation advanced by respondents 5 to 8 as successors of Kundan Singh. 17. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge and the orders of the consolidation authorities are set aside and it is directed that the appellants and Kundan ingh shall be recorded over the 9 plots in dispute as bhumidhars after expungement of the names of Smt. Kastoori as well as respondents Nos. 5 to 8. The appellants shall be entitled to their costs.