Rathinam vs The Sub Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 11033 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11033 Mad
Judgement Date : 29 April, 2021

Madras High Court

Rathinam vs The Sub Registrar on 29 April, 2021

                                                                                    W.P.No.10782 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 29.04.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

                                                      W.P.No.10782 of 2021

                  Rathinam                                                      .. Petitioner
                                                              Vs.

                  The Sub Registrar,
                  Uthukuli,
                  Tiruppur District.                                            .. Respondent

                  Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                  seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining
                  to the respondent in proceedings Refusal Number:RFL/Uthukuli/7/2020,
                  dated 31.12.2020 and to quash the same as illegal and incompetent and
                  consequently direct the respondent to register the decree dated 02.11.2015,
                  passed in I.A.No.853 of 2013 in O.S.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the learned
                  Subordinate Judge, Perundurai.


                                     For Petitioner            : Mr.M.Guruprasad

                                     For Respondent            : Mr.T.M.Pappiah,
                                                                 Special Government Pleader.
                                                             -----




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                  1/7
                                                                                W.P.No.10782 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 respondent refusing to register the decrees passed in the

partition suit in I.A.No.853 of 2013 in O.S.No.21 of 2011, dated 02.11.2015,

on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai, on the ground that

the final 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 partition against one Nalla Muthu and others in

O.S.No.21 of 2011, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perundurai,

seeking for partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 22.02.2013.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.853 of 2013 under

Order 26 Rule 13 of CPC for passing a final decree, and the final decree was

passed on 02.11.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the final decree

before the respondent on 31.12.2020 for registering the same. However, the

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.10782 of 2021

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

carefully.

4. The 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."

5. It is settled that a decree/order passed by a Civil Court is not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.10782 of 2021

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.

7. The above judgments have been followed in number of judgments https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.No.10782 of 2021

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.

9. In view of the above settled position of law, the respondent Sub

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

W.P.No.10782 of 2021

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