Madras High Court
Nethaji @ Vijayakumar vs The District Registrar ... on 27 January, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.(MD) No.10360 of 2020
Nethaji @ Vijayakumar .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Registrar (Registration),
Kumbamkonam.
2.Joint No.1 Sub Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Kumbakonam. .. Respondents
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings of the No.1, Joint Sub Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar, Kumbakonam, dated 22.03.2019 vide
refusal check slip and the subsequent confirmation order passed by the
District Registrar, Kumbakonam dated 05.12.2019 in Na.Ka.No.
2483/Aa/2019 and quash the same consequential direction directing the
respondents to register the Final Decree passed in I.A.No.512 of 1987 in
O.S.No.309/1987 dated 10.12.2014 by the Court of the Principal District
Munsif, Kumbakonam presented by the petitioner, on the file of the No.1,
Joint Sub Registrar, Kumbakonam.
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh
Additional Government Pleader
***
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he filed a case for partition and
for separate possession of the schedule of properties and also for a
declaration that a mortgage dated 24.11.1968 is not binding on the plaintiff.
The suit in O.S.No.8 of 1973 was filed before the Subordinate Judge,
Kumbakonam. The suit was decreed on 24.07.1976 and a partition was
effected into 7 equal shares and all the beneficiaries for the partition
including the petitioner was put in possession of their respective share.
2.The Civil Court has also granted a final decree in I.A.No.512 of
1987 in the renumbered O.S.No.309 of 1987 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, passed on 10.12.2014.
3.The petitioner herein presented the final decree passed by the
competent Civil Court for registration before the second respondent on
21.03.2019, however, the second respondent refused to register the Civil
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020
Court decree and rejected the request on 22.03.2019 by issuing a refusal
check slip. The refusal of the second respondent was only on the ground
that the final decree was presented for registration beyond the prescribed
time period.
4.The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to file an appeal
before the first respondent District Registrar on 07.08.2019. The first
respondent, without proper application of mind, rejected the appeal vide
dated 05.04.2019. In fact, when the first respondent was made aware of the
ruling of this Court saying that there cannot be any time limit in respect of
the Court decrees, still the first respondent has summarily rejected the
appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
5.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents.
6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would state that the issue
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020
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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020
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 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020
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 rejection to register the
document on that ground is per se illegal and liable to be interfered.
13.In the above circumstance, this Court has to necessarily allow
the Writ Petition. The impugned proceedings of the Joint Sub Registrar No.
1, Kumbakonam, dated 22.03.2019 and the subsequent confirmation order
passed by the District Registrar, Kumbakonam dated 05.12.2019 are hereby
set aside. The second respondent is directed to register the final decree
obtained by the petitioner in I.A.No.512 of 1987 in O.S.No.309 of 1987
dated 10.12.2014 by the Court of the Principal District Munsif,
Kumbakonam, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020
14.The second respondent is directed to carryout the said exercise
and register the document if the same is otherwise in order within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 27.01.2021
Internet : Yes/No
SRM
To
1.The District Registrar (Registration),
Kumbamkonam.
2.Joint No.1 Sub Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Kumbakonam.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
srm
W.P.(MD)No.10360 of 2020
27.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
