( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 4-10-2004 made in O. S. No. 17 of 2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, suryapet. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the above suit, which was laid seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule house and also for cancellation of the decree passed in O. S. No. 654 of 1980 on the file of the learned District munsif, Suryapet. During the course of evidence, the petitioner-defendant wanted to mark a simple agreement executed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 5. 50 ps. and also the decree passed in O. S. No. 654 of 1980. At that time, the respondent - plaintiff raised an objection that agreement requires stamp duty, penalty and also registration in view of the nature of the recitals therein and the civil Court decree also requires registration. In support of his contention, the plaintiff relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, AIR 1996 SC 196 . After hearing both sides and considering the case law in this regard, the court below held that the agreement does not require stamp duty or registration, and as such, it can be marked, but the decree in o. S. No. 654 of 1980 cannot be marked for want of registration, since the husband of the defendant was not having any pre-existing right in respect of the said house property prior to passing of the decree and the said decree creates rights, in his favour, for the first time. Aggrieved by the said order insofar as rejecting to mark the decree in O. S, No. 654 of 1980, dated 22-10-1980, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner defendant strenuously contended that the amendment of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short the Act ) i. e. A. P. Act 4 of 1999, with effect from 1-4-1999, in any way does not alter the situation as to the validity and admissibility of a decree obtained by consent prior to 1-4-1999; therefore, it does not require registration for being marked and admitted in evidence before the Court. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the provisions of the amendment i. e. Section 17 (1) (f) of the act are applicable to the Instant case; therefore, any decree obtained with consent, whether passed before 1-4-1999 or thereafter, requires registration. Thus, the Court below rightly rejected to mark the document in question. ( 5 ) I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material made available on record. ( 6 ) THE only question requires to be considered in this revision is as to whether the decree of the civil Court, which is obtained prior to 1-4-1999, can be marked and admitted in evidence without being registered as required under Section 17 (1) (f) of the Act? ( 7 ) THERE are decrees and decrees, which are obtained by consent. It is altogether different that a consent decree is obtained without there being any pre-agreement between the parties and a decree obtained after a prior settlement or agreement between the parties. In this case, it is curious to note that in the plaint in O. S. No. 654 of 1980 itself, it was categorically asserted that there was a settlement between the parties and the same was reduced into writing on 16-7-1980. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff; therefore, the compromise decree was passed. If the decree is not admitted in evidence, though obtained through legal means, it may result in disastrous consequences. For example, in a given case, a lease, which was entered into between the parties for. 11 months before amendment, which never required any registration, is sought to be marked after the amendment. If it is Insisted that unless and until the document is registered, whether it is before or after amendment, it cannot be admitted in evidence, it would be, in my considered opinion, is erroneous. ( 8 ) THIS is a case, admittedly, where the decree was obtained on 22-10-1980 and the a. P. amendment to Section 17 of the Act was made with effect from 1-4-1999 making even a consent decree compulsorily registrable. ( 8 ) THIS is a case, admittedly, where the decree was obtained on 22-10-1980 and the a. P. amendment to Section 17 of the Act was made with effect from 1-4-1999 making even a consent decree compulsorily registrable. In fact, in a reported judgment in g. Sanjeeva Reddy v. I. Lakshmamma, 2001 (4) Andh LT 490 it was held that a compromise decree under Section 17 (l) (f) of the Act is exempted from registration. It is admissible in evidence even without registration. In that case also, it was held as under :"6. However, clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 restricts its application to only such compromise decrees or orders of the Court, which are confined to the subject matter of the suit. It specifically excludes from its ambit, any compromise decree or order of a court, which comprises immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or proceedings. Thus, exemption from compulsory registration to compromise decrees or orders of the Court, does not extend to compromise decrees or orders, which comprise and incorporate any arrangement agreed between the parties in respect of properties, which are not the subject matter of the suit or proceedings. " ( 9 ) IN the Instant case also, except the properties, which were subject matter of the suit, no other properties were clubbed or added to obtain the consent decree to say that it specifically excluded from its ambit any compromise decree or order of the Court, which comprises immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or proceedings as contemplated under section 17 (2) (vi) of the Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above Judgment squarely applies to the present case. ( 10 ) THEN the next question that crops up for consideration is whether in view of section 17 (1) (f) of the Act, which came into force on 1-4-1999, there is any necessity of registration of document in question, since it is being sought to be marked after the amendment i. e. after 1-4-1999. Section 17 (1) (f), which is relevant, reads as under : "17. Section 17 (1) (f), which is relevant, reads as 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. 16 of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 (20 of 1866), or the Indian Registration Act, 1871 (8 of 1871) or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely,- (a) to (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f) any decree or order or award or a copy thereof passed by a civil Court, on consent of the defendants or on circumstantial evidence but not on the basis of any instrument, which is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the indian Stamp Act, 1899, such as registered title deed produced by the plaintiff, where such decree or order or award purports or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, 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. ( 11 ) IN this regard, it may be necessary to ascertain the legislative intention of A. P. Act 4 of 1999 by which clause (f) is incorporated in section 17 (1) of the Act. In the Statement of Objects of A. P. Act 4 of 1999, it is stated that most of the purchasers of immovable property are evading payment of stamp duty by avoiding registration and resorting to filing of declaratory suits, which is causing heavy loss of revenue in the State. The parties are filing such decrees before the authorities concerned and are getting the mutation of the property effected in their names. In many a case, the vendors, in collusion with the vendees, never contest the suits but readily give their consent for passing decrees in favour of the purchasers. The parties are filing such decrees before the authorities concerned and are getting the mutation of the property effected in their names. In many a case, the vendors, in collusion with the vendees, never contest the suits but readily give their consent for passing decrees in favour of the purchasers. Therefore, to curb this evil, the Government have decided to bring such consent decrees passed by a civil Court, agreements of sale of immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and above and leases of immovable property for periods less than an year also, within the purview of Section 17 of the said Act by suitably amending the Act. It was also decided to insert a new Section 22-A so as to empower the Government to notify the registration of such document or class of documents as opposed to public policy and to reject their registration. But, there was no similar provision in the Registration Act, 1908 to collect the deficit in registration fee in such cases. It has, therefore, been decided to empower the registering officer to recover the deficit registration fees and also empower the Government or the inspector General of Registration and stamps to write off the irrecoverable arrears of deficit registration fee as prescribed in the rules to provide for the recovery of the unpaid or deficit registration fee, where the fee has not been paid or insufficiently paid in respect of any document by suitably amending the Act, in its application to the State of andhra Pradesh. Thus, the Statement of objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act contemplated either expressly or impliedly as to the applicability of the amended provision under Section 17 (1) (f) of the Act for the purpose of registration and its validity as required under the law for being marked and admitted in evidence. Further, the amended provision i. e. Section 17 (1) (f) of the act came into force with effect from 1-4-1999. It is cardinal principle of construction of statutes that every statute is prima facie prospective in operation, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. But, the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. It is cardinal principle of construction of statutes that every statute is prima facie prospective in operation, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. But, the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect the existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. In the instant case, admittedly, it is the imposition of new burden for registration of consent decree obtained from a competent Court of law, for being admitted in evidence. Therefore, absolutely there was no intention on the part of the Legislature while introducing the amended provision of Section 17 (1) (f) of the Act to make it retrospective in effect and also to make it applicable to the document - consent decree- which was obtained prior to 1-4-1999 compulsorily registerable. ( 12 ) IN view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no necessity of any registration of a decree, which was obtained by consent, before the amendment came into force with effect from 1-4-1999, particularly in a case like this whether it had satisfied the test of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act as decided by this Court in Sanjeeva Reddy s case (2001 (4) Andh LT 490) (supra ). ( 13 ) FOR all the above reasons, the impugned Order passed by the trial Court to the extent of rejecting to mark the decree in evidence is set aside. The Court below is directed to mark the decree dated 22-10-1980 in O. S. No. 654 of 1980 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Suryapet in evidence, subject to proof and relevancy. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Revision allowed.