Madras High Court
Selvaraju vs The Sub Registrar on 5 February, 2021
W.P.No.2368 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2021
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.No.2368 of 2021
and WMP.No.2674 of 2021
Selvaraju ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar
Velagoundanpatti
Namakkal District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus to call for the
records relating to the impugned order passed made in Check Slip dated
07.01.2021 in RFL/Velagoundanpatti/1/2021 by the respondent quash
the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the decree i
O.S.No.47 of 2015 dated 03.02.2020 passed by the learned Principal
District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabakar
For Respondent : Mr.T.M.Pappiah
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
W.P.No.2368 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner approached the Sub Registrar, Velagoundanpatti,
Namakkal District to register the decree dated 03.02.2020 in O.S.No.47
of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode, on
07.01.2021. However his request was not considered by the Sub-
Registrar, and he has issued a refusal check slip dated 07.01.2021,
indicating that the document was belatedly presented for registration.
Challenging the proceeding dated 07.01.2021, the petitioner has filed the
present petition.
2. Heard Mr.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents and perused the documents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this
Court in a judgment of this Court in K.Dhayanidhi vs. State of Tamil
Nadu [2020 (2) TNCJ 737(Mad)], wherein, the Court has held, after
relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
S.Sarvothaman v. The Sub Registrar at Oulgaret, Puducherry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2368 of 2021
[ 2019(3)MLJ 517 = AIR 2019 Mad 125] that registering a decree of the
Court is an optional registration and hence, the limitation prescribed
under Sections 23 and 25 of the Act, would not apply.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that the Registration Act gives exception in
the document and hence, the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the
document.
5. The law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in
S.Sarvothaman case cited supra, has settled the issue. The registration
of a decree is only optional under Section 17(2) of the Registration Act,
and therefore, the limitation prescribed under Section 23 of the Act, and
the power to condone the delay after four months as provided under
Section 25 of the Act, may not apply. There is however one exception to
the rule in that, as per Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, where in
a compromise decree, any properties other than the subject matter of the
suit (in which compromise decree is passed) is included, then such
compromise decree has to be registered under Section 17(1) of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2368 of 2021
Therefore, except the category of compromise decrees as mentioned in
Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, for all other categories of
decrees, the Registering Authority has to register the same without
reference to any limitation.
6. So far as the decree required to register in the present petition is
concerned, the subject to what is herein above stated, the Registering
Authority is required to register the same. The petition is allowed in the
manner indicated. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
05.02.2021
ds
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To:
The Sub Registrar
Velagoundanpatti
Namakkal District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2368 of 2021
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
W.P.No.2368 of 2021
05.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
