Madras High Court
K.Seenikkalai vs The District Registrar on 28 June, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
K.Seenikkalai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Kunnur Sub-Registrar Office,
Kunnur,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.3508/Aa1/2020 dated ---.
09.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the
second respondent to register the decree in O.S.No.21 of 2011 on the file
of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Srivilliputhur and delete the entries of documents registered as No(s).
905/1997, 73/1998, 1502/2001, 324/2005 and 4762/2009 from its file in
respect of the petitioner's property situated at Moovaraivendran Village,
Watrab Taluk, Virudhunagar District by considering the petitioner's
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
representation dated 07.09.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.I.Muthiah
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus directing the respondents to register the decree
in O.S.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Srivilliputhur and delete the entries of
documents registered as No(s).905/1997, 73/1998, 1502/2001, 324/2005
and 4762/2009 from file in respect of the petitioner's property situated at
Moovaraivendran Village, Watrab Taluk, Virudhunagar District by
considering the petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2020.
2. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that when the
decree was presented for registration before the respondents, 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.S.I.Muthiah, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
appearing for the respondents.
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
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 [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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
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 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].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
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.”
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
6. In view of the settled position of law, the second
respondent is directed to register the decree passed in O.S.No.21 of 2011
dated 19.10.2019, submitted by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order.
7. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.06.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssb
To
1. The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Kunnur Sub-Registrar Office,
Kunnur,
Virudhunagar 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.3116 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
ssb
Order made in
W.P.(MD).No.3116 of 2021
Dated :
28.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
