W.P.No.23092 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.23092 of 2022
S.Saraswathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Avalpoondurai Sub Registrar Office,
Erode District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records petaining to
the Refusal Check Slip in refusal number RFL/Avalpoondurai/72/2022
dated 11.07.2022 and to quash the same as illegal and incompetent and
consequently direct the respondent to register the decree dated 25.07.2017
passed in O.S.No.45 of 2017 on the file of the I - Additional District
Munsif, Erode.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad
For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23092 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records petaining to the Refusal Check Slip in refusal number RFL/Avalpoondurai/72/2022 dated 11.07.2022 and to quash the same as illegal and incompetent and consequently direct the respondent to register the decree dated 25.07.2017 passed in O.S.No.45 of 2017 on the file of the I - Additional District Munsif, Erode.
2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. In view of the limited relief sought for in this petition and on the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.45 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Erode, seeking declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction against the defendants in the suit. Thereafter, the Decree dated 25.07.2017 was passed by the learned I - Additional District Munsif, Erode, in O.S.No.45 of 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner presented a document based on the decree for 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23092 of 2022 registration before the respondent. However, the said document was refused to be registered by the respondent on the ground that the decree has not been presented for registration within the time stipulated. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no time limit is prescribed in the Registration Act. Citing the reason for delay in presenting the document is not sustainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Lingeswaran vs The Sub Registrar in W.P.No.9577 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021, and in the said decision the Division Bench of this Court followed the earlier decisions reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68 (A.K.Gnanasankar vs. Joint -II Sub Registrar, Cuddalore) and 2019 (3) MLJ 571 (S.Sarvothaman vs. The Sub-Registrar, Oulgarpet ), wherein the Court held that, the Court decree is not a compulsorily registrable document and the option lies with the party 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23092 of 2022 in such circumstances. He would particularly rely on paragraphs 6 to 9 of the above decision, which are extracted hereunder:
6. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Padala Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Padala Gangamma, reported in AIR 1959 AP 626, has held that a decree/order passed by a competent Court is not compulsorily registrable document and the party cannot be compelled to get the document registered when there is no obligation cast upon him to register the same. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in A.K.Gnanasankar Vs. Joint- II Sub Registrar, Cuddalore reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68, has held that, a decree is a permanent record of Court and the limitation prescribed for presentation of the document under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, is not applicable to a decree presented for registration.
7. The above judgments have been followed in number of judgments of this Court and recently another Division Bench of this Court in S.Sarvothaman Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret reported in (2019) 3 MLJ 571 has 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23092 of 2022 held that, as the Court decree is not a compulsorily registerable document and the limitation prescribed under the Registration Act would not stand attracted for registering any decree. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"21. By applying the decision in the case of Padala Satyanarayana Murthy to the facts of the case, the only conclusion that could be arrived at is that a court decree is not compulsorily registerable and that the option lies with the party. In such circumstances, the law laid down by this Court clearly states that the limitation prescribed under the Act would not stand attracted."
8. The above judgment was followed in Anitha Vs. The Inspector of Registration in W.P.No.24857 of 2014 dated 01.03.2021, wherein it is held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of a Court decree on the ground of limitation.
5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23092 of 2022
9. In view of the above settled position of law, the respondent Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register the decree on the ground that it is presented beyond the period prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act. In such circumstances, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to register the decree, if it is otherwise in order. No costs.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the said application was rejected under section 23 of the Registration Act.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner and the defendant in the said suit obtained the decree. When the document was presented, the document was rejected by citing section 23 of the Registration Act. The rejection order is wholly in contravention of the order 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23092 of 2022 passed in Lingeswaran's case (supra), ratio is squarely applicable to the present case.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to register the decree in O.S.No.45 of 2017 dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned I - Additional District Munsif, Erode, if it is otherwise in order. No costs.
05.09.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order tri To The Sub Registrar, Avalpoondurai Sub Registrar Office, Erode District.
7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23092 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
tri W.P.No.23092 of 2022 05.09.2022 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis