Madras High Court
S.N.Ganapathy vs The Sub Registrar on 8 July, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
S.N.Ganapathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned Refusal
Check Slip issued by the respondent in Refusal
Number:RFL/Sankarankovil/18/2021, dated 18.06.2021 and quash the same
as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to register the decree in
OS.No.165 of 2017 on the file of the 4th Additional District Court, Tirunelveli
dated 06.12.2019, submitted by the petitioner within a time frame fixed by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondent : Mr.M.Lingadurai,
Government Advocate
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal
check slip dated 18.06.2021 and seeking direction to the respondent to
register the certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.185 of 2017, dated
16.12.2019, on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that when the decree was
presented for registration before the respondent, the same was refused to be
received on the ground that it has been filed beyond the period of limitation
provided under the Registration Act.
3.Heard Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Government Advocate (Civil) appearing for
the respondent.
4.The issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the
earlier Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9686 of 2020, dated 24.07.2020.
The relevant portions of the order are extracted hereunder:-
“5. The issue that is involved in the present writ
petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
in S.Sarvothaman Vs.Sub Registrar in W.A.No.336 of 2019
dated 07.02.2019. The relevant portions in the judgment is
extracted hereunder:
13. As pointed out by us earlier, we need to first
address the legal issue, which arises for consideration as to
whether at all the law of limitation as prescribed under
Section 23 of the Act would apply to a court decree.
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 Vs Joint Sub Registrar, Cuddalore
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 decree, as it is a permanent
record of the Court and register the same, no limitation is
prescribed.
15. This decision was followed by one of us (TSSJ) in
W.P.No.9352 of 2015 dated 31.3.2015 [B.Vijayan Vs. District
Registrar & another]. Subsequently, a similar view had been
taken by this Court in W.P.No.8247 of 2016 dated
07.03.2016 [G.Mudiyarasan & another Vs. Inspector
General of Registration], which once again relied upon the
decision in the case of A.K.Gnanasankar. Further, in the
case of Arun Kumar Vs. Inspector General of Registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
[W.P.No.16569 of 2016 dated 06.6.2016], this Court
directed registration of a judgment and decree passed by the
Principal District Munsif Court, Salem by condoning the
delay on an application filed by the person presenting the
document and in that decision, this Court referred to the
decision in the case of Rasammal Vs. Pauline Edwin &
others [reported in 2011 (2) MLJ 57] wherein the Court
considered the scope of Section 25 of the Act.
16. Again, in the case of P.A.Duraisamy Vs. Registrar,
Registration Department, Coimbatore & another [W.P.No.
2824 of 2013 dated 26.10.2016], an identical view had been
taken following the decision in the case of A.K.Gnanasankar.
A similar view was taken in the case of Lakshmi Vs.
Sub~Registrar, Valapady, Salem District [reported in
2017 (1) LW 721] wherein it was pointed out that the
Proviso to Section 23 of the Act states that a copy of the
decree may be presented within four months from the date,
on which, the decree or order was made or where it is
appealable, within four months from the day, on which, it
becomes final, that the limitation prescribed under Section
23 of the Act should be read within consonance with Section
25 of the Act and that since they were only directory in
nature, the check slip issued by the respondent therein was
held to be bad in law.
17. In the case of A1362 Meenakshi Cooperative
Building Society Ltd. Vs. District Registrar & Others [WP
(MD) No.5108 of 2018 dated 12.04.2018], this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
followed the decision in the case of A.K. Gnanasankar and
directed registration of the court decree. In yet another
decision in the case of Dr.Sulochana Vs. Inspector General
of Registration [reported in 2017 (2) CWC 489], this Court
held that registration is only a part of procedural law and
that though the Statute is fiscal, the doctrine of purposive
and reasonable interpretation has application. This Court
took note of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the
case of Anjinamma Vs. Puttahariyappa [reported in AIR
2003 Karnataka 24].
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shreenath Vs. Rajesh [reported in 1998 (4) SCC 543], held
that in interpreting any procedural law, when more than one
interpretation is possible, the one, which curtails the
procedure without eluding justice, is to be adopted, that the
procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of
justice and that any interpretation, which eludes or
frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed.
19. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
the case of Padala Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Padala
Gangamma [reported in AIR 1959 AP 626] answered a
reference as to whether Section 77 of the Indian Registration
Act bars a suit on the basis of an unregistered Will, when the
Sub Registrar refused to admit it for registration. It was held
that Section 17 of the Act enumerates the documents, which
require registration and the effect of failure to observe it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
stated in Section 47 and that under Section 18 (c) of the Act,
the registration of a Will is purely optional and that being
so, the Full Bench expressed that they did not think that the
consequences contemplated by Section 49 would flow from
not having recourse to Section 77 of the Act. It was further
held that a party cannot be compelled to get document
registered if such an obligation is not cast by the provisions
of the Registration Act, that the necessity for registration
arises only in regard to document set out in Section 17, that
no penalty can attach to the omission to get a document
registered when it is excepted by Section 17 and that
therefore, the Full Bench felt that Section 77 can have
relation only to instrument falling within the ambit of
Section 17.
20. The decision in the case of Padala Satyanarayana
Murthy was followed by the Allahabad High Court in the
decision in the case of Rama Pati Tiwari Vs. District
Registrar, Allahabad [reported in AIR 2009 Allahabad 102].
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 registrable and that the option lies with the
party. In such circumstances, the law laid down by this
clearly states that the limitation prescribed under the Act
would not stand attracted.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
5.The above Judgment will squarely apply to the facts of the present
case. This Court in no uncertain terms has held that the law of limitation
prescribed under Sections 23 and 25 of the Act will not apply to a Court
decree, since it is not compulsory registrable.
6. In view of the settled position of law, the respondent is directed to
register the certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.185 of 2017, dated
16.12.2019, submitted by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order.
7.This writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
08.07.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
TM
To
The Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
NOTE:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
TM
Order made in
W.P.(MD).No.11340 of 2021
Dated:
08.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
