Rajadurai vs The Inspector General Of Registration

Madras High Court

Rajadurai vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 16 May, 2024

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             Reserved on : 20.12.2023

                                            Pronounced on : 16.05.2024

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                            W.P(MD)No.28113 of 2023
                                                     and
                                       W.M.P(MD)Nos.24206 & 24794 of 2023


                Rajadurai                                                   .... Petitioner


                                                       Vs.


                1.The Inspector General of Registration,
                  No.100, Santhome High Road,
                  Raja Annamalaipuram,
                  Chennai – 28.

                2.The District Registrar,
                  Tenkasi District,
                  Tenkasi.

                3.The Sub Registrar,
                  Kadayanallur Sub Registrar Office,
                  Tenkasi.                                                  ... Respondents

                Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
                pertaining to the impugned check slip issued by the 3rd respondent dated
                10.03.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/7
                respondent to register the judgment and decree passed by the learned
                Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli in O.S.No. 33 of 1964 dated 27.10.1966.


                                  For Petitioner    : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja

                                  For Respondents : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan
                                                    Additional Advocate General
                                                    Assisted by Mr.S.RA.Ramachandran
                                                    Additional Government Pleader

                                                        ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner figured as the tenth respondent in O.S.No.33 of 1964 on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli. It was a suit for partition. The suit was compromised. I.A.No.309 of 1966 was filed and on 27.10.1966, compromise decree was passed. As per the compromise, the petitioner was allotted third schedule properties and given common enjoyment of sixth schedule properties. On 10.03.2023, the petitioner presented the certified copy of the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.33 of 1964. The registering authority declined to register the same and issued the impugned refusal check slip dated 10.03.2023. The third respondent has relied on the circular bearing Na.Ka.No.34930/C1/2019 dated 27.02.2023 issued by the first respondent in this regard. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7

3.The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. A learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.06.2023 in W.P(MD)No.14723 of 2023 (S.Elangovan Vs The District Registrar, Karur District, Karur & Another) had held that a registering authority cannot sit over the judicial order or decree and that it is not open to him to undertake the verification exercise in respect of the rights of the parties. Another learned Judge vide order dated 05.01.2024 in W.P.No.36564 of 2023 (P.Vasantha Kumari vs The Joint Sub Registrar-1, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris) had held as follows:

“4. The proviso Section 23 of the Registration Act only says about the period for presenting documents for registration as follows;

23. Time of presenting document.- Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 24, 25, and 26, no document other than a Will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the date on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the date on which it becomes final.

5. In this case, a perusal of the refusal check slip does not show anything that the decree was presented for registration beyond the stipulated period of 4 months and therefore, the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7 was refused to be registered whereas, the reason given by the respondent for not registering the decree is that since it was an ex-parte decree, as per the circular e/f/vz;/34930-rp1-2019 ehs 27/02/2023, issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, exparte decree cannot be registered.

6. It is settled proposition of law that no circular will prevail over the Act or Rules. Therefore, the reason given by the respondent for not registering the ex-parte decree based on the said circular is against the provisions of law. Circular is only for internal communication and not to bypass or over rule or modify the Act. Therefore, though it is not challenged, since this Court has come across several writ petitions wherein, the Registrars by citing the said circular, have refused to register the ex-parte decree, the specific portion in the Circular e/f/vz;/34930-

rp1-2019 ehs 27/02/2023 directing the registering authority not to register the ex-parte decree, which is against Act or Rule, is hereby quashed.

7.Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has not presented the said exparte decree within the stipulated period of 4 months from the date of exparte decree. However, the proviso Section 23 of the Registration Act is not mandatory. If the decree/decree holder gives a valid reason for presenting the decree for registration, the same has to be considered unless the said decree was subsequently set aside or over ruled or modified. Even otherwise, if any dispute arises regarding the same, the aggrieved party can work out their remedy before the civil forum. The Registrar is not the competent authority to testify as to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7 whether the ex-parte decree presented before him/her is a valid and executable one or not. Unless the decree presented for registration is subsequently set aside or over ruled or modified by the competent forum, it is the duty of the Registrar to register the document if the document is otherwise in order and within the purview of the Registration Act.” Respectfully applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the impugned refusal check slip is quashed.

4.The petitioner is permitted to re-present the certified copy of the judgment and decree. It shall be registered by the third respondent and appropriate entries shall be made in the encumbrance register. The petitioner of course has to fulfill the other usual formalities, if any.

5.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

                                                                                     16.05.2024

                Index             : Yes / No
                Internet          : Yes / No
                NCC               : Yes / No
                MGA


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                5/7
                To

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 28.

2.The District Registrar, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

3.The Sub Registrar, Kadayanallur Sub Registrar Office, Tenkasi.

Copy to The Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA W.P(MD)No.28113 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.24206 & 24794 of 2023 16.05.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7