IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4788 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Thati Ashok and others …PETITIONERS AND Thati Laxmamma (Died) and others …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4788 OF 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 14-09-2010 in E.A.No. 1 of 2010 in E.P.No. 15 of 2009 in O.S.No.378 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar. 2. The application was filed by the Revision Petitioners, who are the judgment debtors, under Order XXI, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”) to record compromise. A preliminary decree on the basis of a mortgage was obtained by the decree holders in O.S.No. 378 of 1988. Decree Holders in the above suit are the mortgagees and the said suit was decreed. According to the case of the Revision Petitioners, when the matter was pending before the District Judge in appeal, there was a compromise with the decree holders on 20-08- 2000 and as per the settlement, a sum of Rs.51,000/- was paid and a receipt was said to have been executed. But, after the death of the decree holder No.2, suppressing the real facts, an Execution Petition was filed and in view of the compromise, the decree is not enforceable. 3. The above settlement was denied by the decree holders. E.A.No.1 of 2010 was filed to determine the admissibility of the said compromise deed and the lower Court found that it requires stamp duty and registration as there was transfer of interest and relinquishment of the rights and since the document is not valid, it cannot be received in evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. 4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the lower Court is legal and sustainable? 5. POINT: Evidently, the compromise said to have been entered on 20-08-2000. The present application was filed before the Court on 12-03-2010, which is nearly 10 years after the said compromise. If an application under Order XXI, Rule 20 of CPC is to be filed, then naturally it should be filed within a period of 30 days and in this case, it was not filed so. The application is not filed as a compromise to be recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and therefore, the present application is also not maintainable. The question is as to whether the application can be considered under Section 47 of CPC, if the parties have relinquished the rights outside the Court in pursuance of the understanding. Then naturally every transfer or relinquishment of rights on immovable properties require stamp duty and registration. Even if the stamp duty can be imposed, the registration cannot be dispensed with. In the absence of a valid document about the settlement or satisfaction of the decree, no enquiry under Section 47 CPC can be taken into consideration. The document, dated 20-08-2000 clearly goes to show that by receipt of Rs.51,000/-, all the rights on Ac.0-29 Gts., were relinquished. It does not even so that the decree is satisfied and therefore, this document is executed. Therefore, what was sought to be pressed into service is a document transferring interest on the immovable property, such document requires registration and it cannot be looked. 6. The counsel for the Revision Petitioner contends that an opportunity may be given to adduce evidence and the decision on the document may be deferred later. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents contends that already the decretal amount has been paid and the revision petitioners are continuing in possession of the property illegally and the attempt is only to defeat the decree. 7. I find sufficient substance in the contention of the counsel for the respondents. The order of the lower Court is legal and sustainable and it does not call for any inference. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Date: 09-02-2011. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J INL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4788 OF 2010 9th February, 2011 INL