P.Gokilambal vs The District Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 10481 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 10481 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 April, 2021

Madras High Court

P.Gokilambal vs The District Registrar on 23 April, 2021

                                                                                W.P.No.9944 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 23.04.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

                                                  W.P.No.9944 of 2021
                                              and W.M.P.No.10555 of 2021

                  P.Gokilambal                                             .. Petitioner
                                                         Vs.

                  1. The District Registrar,
                     Tiruppur District,
                     Tiruppur.

                  2. The Sub Registrar,
                     Tiruppur,
                     Tiruppur District.                                    .. Respondents

                  Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                  seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
                  the impugned order passed by the second respondent in refusal Check Slip
                  reference No.RFL/Avinashi/Book2/5 refusing to register the Court Decree
                  dated 06.03.2018, made in O.S.No.213 of 2017 before the Subordinate
                  Court, Avinashi, Tiruppur District and to quash the same and consequently
                  direct the 2nd respondent to register the said decree and to return the
                  documents on its registration forthwith.
                                     For Petitioner       : Mr.N.Anand
                                     For Respondents      : Mr.T.M.Pappiah,
                                                            Special Government Pleader.
                                                        -----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                  1/7
                                                                                 W.P.No.9944 of 2021

                                                       ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference)

The writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip

issued by the second respondent refusing to register the decree passed in the

partition suit in O.S.No.213 of 2017, dated 06.03.2018, on the file of the

learned Subordinate Judge, Avinashi, Tiruppur District, on the ground that

the Decree placed for registration beyond the period of four months after

obtaining the copy of the Decree.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition is that the

petitioner's sister filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and her

mother in O.S.No.213 of 2017, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,

Avinashi seeking for partition and based on the compromise memo the Court

the judgment and decrees on 06.03.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner

presented the decree before the second respondent on 20.05.2019 for

registering the same. However, the second respondent refused to register the

same stating that the decree was placed for registration after four months

from the date of obtaining a copy of the decree from the Civil Court and it

could not be registered and returned the same. Challenging the same, the

present writ petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.9944 of 2021

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records

carefully.

4. The second respondent Sub Registrar refused to register the

document relying upon Section 23, of the Registration Act, which prescribes

time limit of four months for presentation of document for registration from

the date of its execution and in case of a decree, within four months from the

date of the decree and if it is appealable, within four months from the date on

which it becomes final. Section 23 reads as follows:

"23. Time for presenting documents.—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 day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.9944 of 2021

5. It is settled that a decree/order passed by a Civil Court is not

compulsorily registrable document. Section 17(1) of the Registration Act

(hereinafter called as the 'Act') deals with compulsory registration of

documents. Section 17(2) of the Act is an exception to Section 17(1) of the

Act. Section 18 of the Act refers to documents for which registration is

optional. A decree/order passed by the Civil Court will not fall under Section

17(1) of the Act.

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.9944 of 2021

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 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.9944 of 2021

9. In view of the above settled position of law, the second 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

second respondent is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by