Madras High Court
S.Subashini vs The Inspector General Of ... on 28 April, 2021
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.11069 of 2021
S.Subashini .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai - 28.
2. The District Registrar (Administration),
Deputy Inspector General,
Vellore, Vellore District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in
impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1511/Aa1/2021, dated 01.03.2021, passed by
the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct
the second respondent to register the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016,
passed in O.S.No.222 of 2015 passed by the learned Additional District
Munsif, Vellore District within stipulated time period.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam
For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah,
Special Government Pleader.
-----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
second respondent concurring with the order passed by the Sub Registrar,
Vellore in refusing to register the decree passed in the suit in O.S.No.222 of
2015, dated 20.10.2016, on the file of the learned Additional District
Munsif, Vellore 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 filed a suit for declaration and peaceful possession against one
Velu @ Kuppusamy Mudaliyar and others in O.S.No.222 of 2015, on the file
of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore. By judgment and decree
dated 20.10.2016, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner.
Thereafter, the petitioner presented the decree before the Sub Registrar,
Vellore, for registering the same. However, the Sub Registrar, Vellore
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. Aggrieved
over the same the petitioner filed a petition before the second respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
the second respondent vide impugned order dated 01.03.2021, stated that
the Sub Registrar, Vellore was right in refusing to register the decree
presented by the petitioner as it was beyond the period of limitation.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records
carefully.
4. The 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
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."
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
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 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 order dated 01.03.2021, passed by the second
District Registrar, is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by
the second respondent is set aside and the Sub Registrar, Vellore is directed
to register the decree, if it is otherwise in order. No costs.
28.04.2021
kk
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai - 28.
2. The District Registrar (Administration),
Deputy Inspector General,
Vellore, Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
kk
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.11069 of 2021
28.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
