W.P.No.23968 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.23968 of 2022
Amit Chowdhary ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub-Registrar,
Maduranthakam Sub-Registrar Office,
Maduranthakam.
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.
...Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
order/Check Slip in RFL/Maduranthakam/3/2022 dated 27.06.2022, issued
by the 1st respondent and quash the same and directing the 1st respondent to
register the document i.e., Sale Certificate dated 08.02.2021, in Book I,
without insisting for stamp duty, as contemplated under Section 89(2) of the
Registration Act and to return the same to the petitioner.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23968 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.Ralph V. Manohar
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order/Check Slip in RFL/Maduranthakam/3/2022 dated 27.06.2022, issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and directing the 1st respondent to file the document i.e., Sale Certificate dated 08.02021, in Book I, without insisting for stamp duty, as contemplated under Section 89(2) of the Registration Act and to return the same to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the subject property in a bank auction and a certificate of sale was issued to the petitioner by Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II on 09.02.2021 and when the petitioner presented the same before the 1st respondent for registration on 27.06.2022, however, the first respondent refused to register the same, vide Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/ Maduranthakam/3/ 2022 dated 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 of 2022 27.06.2022 on the ground that the sale certificate has been presented for registration after 4 months and further stated that in case the sale certificate has to be accepted for filing in office records, a sum of equal to 5 times the registration has to be paid as penalty for filing in office records. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time limit is prescribed in the Registration Act with regard to registration of the sale certificate. Therefore, citing delay in presenting the document as reason for not registering the same is not sustainable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Debt recovery Officer in the auction proceedings and he relied 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) 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 of 2022 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 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 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.
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 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 of 2022 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.”
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the said application was rejected on the ground that there was inordinate delay in registering the sale certificate.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of a Sale Certificate which when presented was not entertained citing delay in submission. It is to be pointed out that this Court in a catena of decisions had held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of a Court decree on the ground of limitation. That being the case, the facts in the present case are identical to Ligeswaran's case and the ratio laid therein stands squarely attracted. Therefore, the rejection order is wholly in contravention of the order passed in Lingeswaran's case (supra).
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 of 2022 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to register the Sale certificate, dated 09.02.2021 issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II without referring the delay or imposing any penalty. No costs.
07.09.2022 smn Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To
1. The Sub-Registrar, Maduranthakam Sub-Registrar Office, Maduranthakam.
2. The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 of 2022 smn W.P.No.23968 of 2022 07.09.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis