ORDER 1. The present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the order dated 12.3.2022 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II Dabra, District Gwalior in Lok Adalat in which settlement reached between the parties has been reflected in compromise decree and it has been observed that compromise decree would come into effect after requisite registration. 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that a suit was filed by the petitioner against the defendants/respondents No. 1 to 3 for declaration to the effect that suit property is under the right, title and interest of the petitioner. Defendants appeared and raised their intention for settlement of the case. Resultantly, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was preferred by the parties and matter was placed in Lok Adalat before the trial Court. 3. On due consideration, looking to the intention of the parties as reflected in application under Order 23 rule 3 CPC compromise decree was prepared and civil suit was disposed of in light of the compromise reached between the parties. However, in condition No.4 trial Court observed that compromise decree would come into effect after due registration and this is the bone of contention. Therefore, this petition has been preferred purportedly under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that case does not attract registration under the Registration Act, 1908 as directed by the Court below because it's a compromise decree comprising immovable property which is the subject matter of the suit, therefore, does not fall under section 17(2) (vi) of the Act of 1908. 5. Learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned order. 6. Heard. 7. This is a case where petitioner is taking exception to the order dated 12.3.2022 passed in Lok Adalat whereby, compromise decree has been prepared in which Clause 4 has been referred by the trial Court and observed that compromise decree would only be imposed after due registration. 8. Section 17 of Act, 1908 deals in respect of documents of which registration is compulsory. Section 17 (1) (b) and section 17(2) (vi) are being invoked by the Court below for imposing such conditions. 8. Section 17 of Act, 1908 deals in respect of documents of which registration is compulsory. Section 17 (1) (b) and section 17(2) (vi) are being invoked by the Court below for imposing such conditions. section 17(1) (b) is reproduced as under:- “17(1) (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." section 17 (2) (vi) of Registration Act reads as under:- "(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]" 9. Perusal of section 17(2) (vi) indicates that a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property if is the subject matter of the suit then it is excluded from the condition of registration as it falls under the exclusionary clause as provided in the provision. This aspect has been dealt with in the case of Gurcharan Singh and others v. Angrez Kaur and Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 250 and in the cases of Mohd. Yusuf vs. Rajkumar and ors, (2020) 10 SCC 264 and Khushi Ram and Ors. v. Nawal Singh & Ors, 2021 (1) JLJ 537 . Relevant extract of judgment of apex Court in the case of Khushi Ram (supra) is reproduced for ready reference:- “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 19.8.1991 relate to the subjectmatter 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 19.8.1991 was not registrable and Courts below have rightly held that the decree did not require registration." 10. Thus, we, answer question No.1 that the consent decree dated 19.8.1991 was not registrable and Courts below have rightly held that the decree did not require registration." 10. In view of the above annunciation of law, no iota of doubt exists that such type of compromise decree in which immovable property comprises subject matter of the suit proceedings, no necessity of registration exist. Resultantly, impugned order dated 12.03.2022 is modified to the extent that condition No. 4 stands deleted and petitioner is not required to register the compromise decree. 11. Rest of the conditions and other provisions regarding compromise decree shall remain intact. Disposed of.