Madras High Court

A.G.Mohammed Arshaan vs The Sub Registrar Purasawalkam on 27 August, 2021

                                                                                    W.P.No.17992 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                     DATED: 27.08.2021
                                                         CORAM:
                     THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
                                                  W.P. No. 17992 of 2021
                                                           and
                                                 W.M.P. No. 19218 of 2021

                A.G.Mohammed Arshaan                                                       .. Petitioner

                                                           Versus

                The Sub Registrar Purasawalkam
                No.3/1, Brickklin Road, A Block,
                TVK Nagar, Purasaiwakkam,
                Chennai – 600 012.                                                       .. Respondent

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the files of the respondent impugned check slip No. RFL/ Puraswalkam / 6/ 2021 dated 04.08.2021 refusing to register Judgment and Decree in C.S. No.330 of 2000 dated 09.10.2003 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the Judgement and Decree in C.S. No.330 of 2000 dated 09.10.2003 and to release the same.

                                    For Petitioner          : Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia
                                                              for Aiyar and Dolia

                                    For Respondent          : Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                              Government Advocate




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

                                                                                  W.P.No.17992 of 2021

                                                    O RD E R

This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned check slip No. RFL/

Puraswalkam/6/2021, dated 04.08.2021, refusing to register the Judgment and

Decree in C.S. No.330 of 2000 dated 09.10.2003 and consequently direct the

respondent to register the Judgement and Decree in C.S. No.330 of 2000 dated

09.10.2003 and to release the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased 1/3 rd undivided share of

the property comprised in R.S. No.2/7 Part, out of 4637 square feet, together

with common right over the passage measuring 12.5 feet wide and 59 feet long

leading to Ramaswamy Mudaliar Road, under sale deed dated 08.05.1997 and

registered as document No.1447 of 1997, in the office of the Sub Registrar,

Purasawalkam, from one Daniel james Bissett Edward through his Power Agent

namely A.K.Raghavulu. The petitioner's parents namely A.G.Naser Ahmed and

A.R.Rubeena Farheen, purchased the balance 1/3 rd undivided share of the

property comprised in R.S. No.2/7 Part, out of 4637 square feet, under sale

deeds dated 08.05.1997, vide document Nos.1448 & 1449 of 1997,

respectively, from Daniel james Bissett Edward through his Power Agent

namely A.K.Raghavulu. The petitioner and his parents put up new building

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

W.P.No.17992 of 2021

construction over the said land after obtaining due sanction from the

Corporation of Chennai and Tahsildar, Purasawalkam – Perambur Taluk,

Chennai, under Patta C.A. No.947/2002-2003. The vendor Daniel James

Bissett Edward, through his another power agent Pushpa Sachdeva, cancelled

the aforesaid three sale deeds under cancellation deed dated 31.03.2000 and

registered as document No.1505 of 2000, 1506 of 2000 and 1507 of 2007. The

petitioner filed a suit against his power agent A.K.Raghavulu, in C.S. No.330

of 2000, before this Court, seeking direction for cancellation of above three

sale deeds. It is stated by the petitioner that by virtue of compromise decree

dated 09.10.2003 in C.S. No.330 of 2000, this Court held that the sale deeds are

binding in nature and confirmed the title of the property in favour of the

petitioner and his parents. It is further stated by the petitioner that though the

respondent was informed about the above decision and a copy of the above

judgment was also shared, the respondent took a stand that the judgment will

not be binding him unless there is an order of Inspector General of Registration

or specific order from the Court and refused to register the judgment and decree

in C.S. No.330 of 2000, dated 09.10.2003 and issued impugned check slip.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing

this present Writ Petition.

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

W.P.No.17992 of 2021

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent

cannot refuse to register a decree as it is not time bound and Section 23 and 24

of the Registration Act, will have no application to a Court decree. He further

submitted that the petitioner holds a valid title and is in occupation of the

property. The judgment and decree in C.S. No.330 of 2000 dated 09.10.2003,

reconfirms the title of the petitioner and his parents. He further submitted that

the refusal of registering the document by the respondent is totally illegal and

not maintainable in law and hence, he prays to allow this Writ Petition.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.336 of 2019,

dated 07.02.2019, wherein it is held as hereunder:

“14.This question is no longer res integra and this Court has consistently held that the law of limitation will not apply when a court decree is presented for registration. Earlier of the decisions, which has been followed consistently by a division Bench of this Court is in the case of A.K.Gnanasankar Vs. Joint-II Sub-Registrar, Cuddalore -2 [reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68]. In the said decision, this Court held that the limitation prescribed for presenting a document does not apply to a decree, as it is a permanent record of the Court and to register the same, no limitation is prescribed.”

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

W.P.No.17992 of 2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of this Court in

W.P.(MD) Nos.8091, 8093 and 9446 of 2020 dated 25.06.2021, wherein it is

held as hereunder:

“ 21. In view of the settled law, the Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register any order or decree only on the ground that the same has been presented beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 23 of the Act.

Hence, the Sub Registrar shall entertain the certified copy of the decree that is presented by the petitioners and shall register the same.”

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent

submitted that Section 23 of the Registration Act specifically provides for the

time limit within which a document must be presented. He further submitted

that according to Section 23 of the Registration Act, a decree should be

presented for registration, within a period of four months from the date on

which the decree or the order was made ready. Learned Government Advocate

further submitted that the said Act specifically provides for a time limit for

presenting a decree for registration and on the expiry of the time limit, the said

decree cannot be entertained by the Registrar. Hence, prays dismissal of this

Writ Petition.