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 sub­section (1) of Section 17, as was the position in the aforesaid Privy Council and this Court’s 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 sub­section (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.”