Madras High Court

E.Satheeskumar vs The Inspector General Of ... on 19 February, 2021

                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 19.02.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

                                                  W.P.(MD) No.891 of 2021

                      E.Satheeskumar                                          ... Petitioner

                                                           -vs-

                      1.The Inspector General of Registration,
                        Santhome High Road,
                        Chennai.

                      2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Office,
                        Madurai,
                        Madurai District.

                      3.The District Registrar,
                        Thenkarai,
                        Periyakulam,
                        Theni District.

                      4.The Sub Registrar,
                        Theni,
                        Theni District.                                     ... Respondents

                      Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
                      for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
                      relating to the impugned order / Refusal Check Slip dated 02.12.2020 made
                      in RFL/Theni/4/2020 issued by the 4th respondent and quash the same and


                      1/8

http://www.judis.nic.in
                      consequently direct the 4th respondent to register Preliminary decree dated
                      17.10.2016 in I.A.No.572/2014 in O.S.No.216/2013 passed by The Sub
                      Court Theni, Theni District within the time fixed by this Court.


                                  For Petitioner     : Mr.E.Satheeskumar Party-in-person
                                  For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathiyasingh
                                                   Additional Government Pleader

                                                        ORDER

The short facts are that originally the petitioner's mother has filed an

interlocutory application in I.A.No.572 of 2011 in O.S.No.216 of 2013

claiming 1/6th share in the suit schedule property before the learned

Subordinate Judge, Theni and subsequently, she died. The said application

was decreed vide decree of the trial Court dated 17.10.2016. The petitioner

had presented the certified copy of the decree and judgment in I.A.No.572

of 2014 in O.S.No.216 of 2013 before the 4th respondent for registration and

the 4th respondent refused to register the judgment and decree of the Civil

Court on the ground that there was a delay in presenting the document for

registration since the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Theni, was

dated 17.10.2016.

http://www.judis.nic.in

2.As far as the issue of refusal by the 4th respondent to register the

Civil Court decree on the stated ground is concerned, the Courts have

consistently held in respect of registration of the Court judgments and

decrees, no limitation is applicable and this Court has allowed a number of

Writ Petitions with similar challenges.

3.The present petitioner also is before this Court challenging the

refusal order of the 4th respondent in failing to register the judgment and

decree of the Civil Court in I.A.No.572 of 2014 in O.S.No.216 of 2013

dated 17.10.2016.

4.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner would submit that even very recently this Court has allowed

similar Writ Petitions by setting aside the refusal check slip issued by the

Registration Department. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would

refer to the decision of this Court rendered in W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020

dated 27.01.2021. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would specifically

http://www.judis.nic.in draw the attention of this Court to paragraphs 6 to 12 in the order which are

extracted hereunder:

“6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would state that the issue where the rejection of request for registration of the Court decrees on the basis of the limitation is no more res integra and there are any number of decisions holding that there cannot be any time limitation for registration of the Court decrees.

7.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to a recent Division Bench judgment reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 23555 [S.Sarvothaman v. Sub Registrar]. One of the questions framed for consideration by the Division Bench was incorporated in paragraph 6 which reads as under:

“6.The legal question involved in the instant case is as to whether the respondent could have refused registration of the said decree passed in O.S.No.6 of 1968 dated 29.04.1970 on the ground that it was presented beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 23 of the Act. Since the legal question is no longer res integra and the respondent having not taken note of the legal issue, this Court is of the view that said the writ petition is maintainable and the appellant need not be driven to avail the alternate remedy available under the Act. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader stands rejected.”

8.The Division Bench observed that the said issue was no more res integra in paragaraph 14 which reads as under:

“14.This question is no longer res integra and this Court has consistently held that the law of

http://www.judis.nic.in limitation will not apply when a Court decree is presented for registration. Earliest of the decisions, which has been followed consistently by a Division Bench of this Court is in the case of A.K.Gnanasankar v. 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.”

9.Thereafter, the Division Bench has relied on several decisions in support of the above conclusion and finally held in paragraph 26 which is extracted hereunder:

“26.As pointed out by us earlier, the time limit stipulated under Section 23 of the Act will have no application to a court decree. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the respondent for refusing to register the decree dated 29.04.1970 vide order dated 05.07.2018 is unsustainable in law.”

10.Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the Courts have consistently held that no time limit would be made applicable in respect of registration of Court decrees, unfortunately, the authorities are passing routine orders in such matters, without reference to the legal principles laid down by the Courts.

11.As far as the legal principle is concerned, in regard to the subject matter, the learned Additional Government Pleader fairly admitted and conceded the position.

12.In the face of the settled issue that in respect of a Court decree the period of limitation would not apply, the

http://www.judis.nic.in rejection to register the document on that ground is per se illegal and liable to be interfered.”

Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would pray for

similar orders to be passed in this Writ Petition as well.

5.Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader would

not quarrel with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

would, in fact, fairly concede as to the settled legal position in regard to the

issue raised in the Writ Petition.

6.In view of the same, the Writ Petition has to be necessarily allowed.

In the said circumstances, the order passed by the 4th respondent in

RFL/Theni/4/2020, dated 02.12.2020 is hereby set aside and the 4th

respondent is directed to register the judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.