ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. This petition is filed against the compromise judgment and decree passed by the Bench No. 21 of National Lok Adalat, Durg on 12.03.2022, wherein the Bench after recording the compromise decree between the parties in Clause No. 10 held that the compromise decree shall be effective after its registration. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants with respect to the suit property described in Schedule appended to the plaint. Civil suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 247A/2021 in the Court of 15th Civil Judge, Class-II, District Durg. 5. The respondents/defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement and denied the plaint's averments and specifically pleaded that plaintiff, defendants 2 & 3 are in possession of their respective shares as per family arrangement dated 15.09.2014. 6. The case was pending before the learned trial Court and during its pendency the plaintiff and defendands No. 1 to 3 arrived at compromise and therefore, a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. was moved depicting therein the terms of compromise. Respondent No. 4 submitted his no objection. 7. In pursuant to the application filed by the parties, the Civil Suit No. 247A/2021 was referred to the National Lok Adalat on 12.03.2022 and it was placed before the Bench No. 21 to record compromise award and decree between the parties. 8. The Lok Adalat considering the averments of compromise application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. passed the award and compromise decree vide Annexure-P/1 on 12.03.2022. The Bench reduced the terms and conditions of the compromise application in its decree but vide clause No. 10 it has been ordered that the compromise decree will be effective only after its registration. The Bench reduced the terms and conditions of the compromise application in its decree but vide clause No. 10 it has been ordered that the compromise decree will be effective only after its registration. The compromise decree recorded by the Bench No. 21 is reproduced herein-below: jkthukek fMØh& 1- oknh dks okn i= ds lkFk layXu ekufp= vuqlwph ¼c½ esa yky jax ls nf'kZr LFkku okn lEifRr [kljk uEcj 1088@3 jdck 0-081 gsŒ esa 20^2-5^^ xq.kk 159^6-5^^ ¾ 3180 oxZQhV dh Hkwfe o edku@nqdku dk oknh ,d ek= Lokeh gksxkA 2- ÁfrŒ Øekad 02 dqynhi dks okn i= ds lkFk layXu ekufp= vuqlwph ¼v½ esa uhyk jax ls nf'kZr LFkku okn lEifRr [kljk uEcj 1088@3 jdck 0-081 gsŒ esa 19^9-5^^ xq.kk 161^9-5^^ ¾ 3180 oxZQhV dh Hkwfe edku@nqdku dk ,d ek= Lokeh Áfroknh Øekad 02 gksxkA 3- oknh ,oa Áfroknhx.k bl ckr ij lger gS fd vkilh ekSf[kd foHkktu o ikfjokfjd O;oLFkkukek vuqlkj ÁfrŒ Øekad 03 ve`riky flax dks okn i= ds lkFk layXu ekufp= vuqlwph ¼l½ esa gjk jax ls nf'kZr LFkku okn lEifRr [kljk uEcj 1088@3 jdck 0-081 gsŒ esa 19-8^ xq.kk 164 ¾ 3180 oxZQhV dh Hkwfe edku@nqdku dk ,d ek= Lokeh Áfroknh Øekad 03 gksxkA 4- oknh ,oa ÁfrŒ Øekad 1 dks r`rh; vfrfjDr Á/kku U;k;k/kh'k dqVqEc U;k;ky; nqxZ ds U;k;ky; ds nkf.Md Ádj.k Øekad 576@19 esa ikfjr vkns'k ,oa jkthukek fnukad 11-10-2019 ds vk/kkj ij ijokfj'k dh jkf'k vnk djsxk ftl ij Hkfo”; esa oknh ,oa ÁfrŒ Øekad 1 vkil esa dksbZ okn&fookn ugha djsaxs vkSj uk gh ÁfrŒ Øekad 1 oknh ds LoRo dks Hkfo”; esa ÁHkkfor djsxhA ÁfrŒ Øekad 1 oknh ,oa ÁfrŒ Øekad 2 o 3 }kjk jktLo vfHkys[k esa viuk uke foHkktu vuqlkj ntZ djk;k tkrk gS] rks mlesa Áfrokfnuh Øekad 1 dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxhA 5- oknh ,oa ÁfrŒ Øekad 2 o 3 vuqlwph@ekufp= v] c] l dh lEifRr ij bl jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa viuk&viuk uke crkSj HkwLokeh i`Fkd :i ls ntZ djkus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxs vkSj jkthukek ds vuq:i ÁfrŒ Øekad 1 gjHktu dkSj dk uke jktLo vfHkys[kks ls foyksfir djus gsrq lger gSA 6- oknh ,oa ÁfrŒ Øekad 2 o 3 vius&vius dkfct LFkku ij Lora= :i ls dkfct gksdj mldk mi;ksx&miHkksx LovftZr lEifRr ds :i esa djus ds fy, Lora= gksaxs] ftlesa dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj ,d&nwljs ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; esa fdlh Ádkj dk fo?u] ck/kk] fookn mRiUu ugha djsxkA 7- okni= ds lkFk layXu vuqlwph@ekufp= v] c] l dks bl jkthukek fMØh dk vax ekuk tkosA 8- mHk;i{k viuk okn O;; Lo;a ogu djsaxsA vfHkHkk”kd 'kqYd ckcr~ O;o rkfydk i`Fkd ls rS;kj fd;k tkosA 9- U;k;'kqYd okilh ckcr~ Áek.k i= i`Fkd ls rS;kj fd;k tkosA 10- ;g jkthukek fMØh iath;u mijkar gh ÁHkko'khy gksxhA 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of Court and cannot be contingent upon further act of registration of decree. He further submits that the provisions of Section 17 (1) (e) of the Registration Act, 1908 is not applicable as there is no transfer or assignment of any decree or any award by any non-testamentary instrument in favour of the plaintiff and defendants. His next contention is that the Lok Adalat cannot impose terms beyond the compromise arrived between the parties. He submits that the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat does not require registration as per provisions of Section 17 (1) (b) (c) of the Registration Act. He placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Mohammade Yusuf and Others vs. Rajkumar and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 125 and Khushi Ram and Others vs. Nawal Singh and Others, AIR 2021 SC 1117 . 10. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 supports the award and decree passed by the National Lok Adalat. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the decisions of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the matters of Beedam Reddappa Reddy vs. Yellaboyina Vani and Others, 2011 SCC Online A.P. 503 and Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy vs. Noone Krishna Veni, 2015 SCC Online Hyd. 379. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and Sections 17 (1), 17 (2) (vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 which are relevant for present case are given below: Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: 21. Award of Lok Adalat: (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the court-free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. Sections 17 (1), 17 (2) (vi) of the Registration Act, 1908: 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 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: (a) instruments of gift of immovable property. (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate 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. (c) non-testamentary instrument which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest. (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent. (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: (i) to (v) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (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. 13. (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to: (i) to (v) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (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. 13. Section 17 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 describes documents of which registration is compulsory. Section 17 (1) (b) deals with other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate 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 requires registration. Section 17 (2) (vi) provides for an exception for 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 subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. It is clear from reading Section 17 (2) (vi) that any decree or order of a court does not require registration, if immovable property comprises subject matter of the suit. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammade Yusuf Case (supra) has held in Paras 6, 7 & 16 as under: 6. Under Section 17 (1) (b), non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate 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 requires registration. The word “instrument” is not defined in the Registration Act, but is defined in the Stamp Act, 1899 by Section 2 (14). 7. A compromise decree passed by a court would ordinarily be covered by Section 17 (1) (b) but sub-section (2) of Section 17 provides for an exception for 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. Thus, by virtue of sub-section (2) (vi) of Section 17 any decree or order of a court does not require registration. Thus, by virtue of sub-section (2) (vi) of Section 17 any decree or order of a court does not require registration. In sub-clause (vi) of subsection (2), one category is excepted from sub-clause (vi) i.e. a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. Thus, by conjointly reading Section 17 (1) (b) and Section 17 (2) (vi), it is clear 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). A copy of the decree passed in Suit No. 250-A of 1984 has been brought on record as Annexure P-2, which indicates that decree dated 4-10-1985 was passed by the Court for the property, which was subject-matter of the suit. Thus, the exclusionary clause in Section 17 (2) (vi) is not applicable and the compromise decree dated 4-10-1985 was not required to be registered on plain reading of Section 17 (2) (vi). The High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 709 , in which case, the provision of Section 17 (2) (vi) of the Registration Act came for consideration. This Court in the above case while considering clause (vi) laid down the following in Paras 16, 17 and 18: (SCC pp. 715-716) “16. We have to view the reach of clause (vi), which is an exception to sub-section (1), bearing all the aforesaid in mind. We would think that the exception engrafted is meant to cover that decree or order of a court, including a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise, which declares the pre-existing right and does not by itself create new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs.100 or upwards. Any other view would find the mischief of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, embedded in the decree or order. 17. Any other view would find the mischief of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, embedded in the decree or order. 17. It would, therefore, be the duty of the court to examine in each case whether the parties have pre-existing right to the immovable property, or whether under the order or decree of the court one party having right, title or interest therein agreed or suffered to extinguish the same and created right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs.100 or upwards in favour of other party for the first time, either by compromise or pretended consent. If latter be the position, the document is compulsory registrable. 18. The legal position qua clause (vi) can, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, be summarised as below: (1) Compromise decree if bona fide, in the sense that the compromise is not a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the law relating to registration, would not require registration. In a converse situation, it would require registration. (2) If the compromise decree were to create for the first time right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 or upwards in favour of any party to the suit the decree or order would require registration. (3) If the decree were not to attract any of the clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 17, as was the position in the aforesaid Privy Council and this Courts Cases, it is apparent that the decree would not require registration. (4) If the decree were not to embody the terms of compromise, as was the position in Lahore case, benefit from the terms of compromise cannot be derived, even if a suit were to be disposed of because of the compromise in question. (5) If the property dealt with by the decree be not the “subject-matter of the suit or proceeding” clause (vi) of sub-section (2) would not operate, because of the amendment of this clause by Act 21 of 1929, which has its origin in the aforesaid decision of the Privy Council, according to which the original clause would have been attracted, even if it were to encompass property not litigated. 16. 16. In the facts of the present case, the decree dated 4-10-1985 was with regard to the property, which was the subject-matter of the suit, hence not covered by exclusionary clause of Section 17 (2) (vi) and the present case is covered by the main exception crafted in Section 17 (2) (vi) i.e. “any decree or order of a court.” When registration of an instrument as required by Section 17 (1) (b) is specifically excluded by Section 17 (2) (vi) by providing that nothing in clause (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to any decree or order of the court, we are of the view that the compromise decree dated 4-10-2985 did not require registration and the learned Civil Judge as well as the High Court erred in holding otherwise. We, thus, set aside the order of the Civil Judge dated 7-1-2015 as well as the judgment of the High Court dated 13-2-2017. The compromise decree dated 4-10-1985 is directed to be exhibited by the trial Court. The appeal is allowed accordingly.” 15. In the matter of Khushi Ram Case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para-20 as under: “20. This Court held that since the decree which was sought to be exhibited was with regard to the property which was subject-matter of suit, hence, was not covered by exclusionary clause of Section 17 (2) (vi) and decree did not require registration. The issue in the present case is squarely covered by the above judgment. We, thus, conclude that in view of the fact that the consent decree dated 19.08.1991 relate to the subject-matter of the suit, hence it was not required to be registered under Section 17 (2) (vi) and was covered by exclusionary clause. Thus, we, answer question No. 1 that the consent decree dated 19.08.1991 was not registrable and Courts below have rightly held that the decree did not require registration.” 16. In Beedam Reddappa Reddy case (supra), the High Court has held that in view of Section 21 (2) of the Legal Services Authority Act, every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the disputes and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. 17. In Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy Case (supra), it has been observed in Para-33 as under: “33. 17. In Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy Case (supra), it has been observed in Para-33 as under: “33. The third contention raised by the learned senior counsel for petitioner is that the Award dated 30.06.2011 requires registration, as the lease is for more than 11 months. In the case on hand, this Court is not considering the grant of a lease in terms of the Award. If the Award contains any of the clauses, which according to Section 17 of the Registration Act requires registration, then it is for a party who wishes to take advantage of such clause to get the document or Award registered. In the case on hand, the prayer of respondent/DHr is to secure vacant possession of EP schedule property as agreed by the revision petitioner through Award dated 30.06.2011. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Award does not require registration. All the three objections raised by the petitioner fail and are rejected.” 18. It is not in dispute that application under Order 23 Rule 3 was moved by the parties pertaining to suit land and the suit property was subject-matter of the suit. Therefore, according to the provisions of Section 17 (2) (vi) of Registration Act, registration is not required. First decision cited by learned counsel for the respondents in case of Beedam Reddappa Reddy (supra) deals with the provisions of Section 21 (2) of Legal Services Authorities Act. It is not in dispute that the order or compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the disputes, no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. This decision has no bearing in the case in hand. Second decision cited by learned counsel for the respondents in case of Alla Venkata Krishna Reddy (supra) pertains to grant of lease and therefore, it was held by High Court that it requires registration, whereas in the present case, the petitioner has challenged only one clause of the compromise decree where it is held that the decree would effective after its registration, therefore, the respondents are not getting any help from the above cited decisions. 19. 19. On the basis of above discussions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is crystal clear that the award or decree passed by the Lok Adalat comprising in immovable property which is subject-matter of the suit or proceeding does not require registration. Consequence and fall out of the above discussions the clause No. 10 given in the compromise award and decree dated 12.03.2022 passed by the Lok Adalat, Bench No. 21 in Civil Suit No. 247-A/2021 is set aside and it is held that the compromise decree does not require registration and the same is effective without registration. 20. In result, the petition is allowed.