Madras High Court
S.Kalpana vs The District Registrar on 8 March, 2021
W.P.No.5581 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2021
CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
WP.No.5581 of 2021
S.Kalpana ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Registrar,
O/o the District Registrar,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Barur Sub-Registrar Office,
Barur, Pochampalli Taluk,
Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relaing to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Refusal
No.RFL/Barur/1/2021 dated 04.01.2021 and quash the same as the same
is arbitrary, illegal and non-est in the eyes of law and consequently direct
the 2nd respondent to register the court decree dated 07.07.2015 made in
D.V.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Uthangarai along with award passed by the Lok Adalat
at Uthangarai on 07.07.2015.
http://www.judis.nic.in1/6
W.P.No.5581 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Arockia Dass
For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Barur Sub-Registrar Office,
Barur, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District/second respondent to
register the court decree dated 07.07.2015, but it was presented well
beyond the time for registering the documents, and on this ground, the
Sub-Registrar has refused to register the document Vide Refusal
No.RFL/Barur/1/2021 dated 04.01.2021 indicating that the document
was belatedly presented for registration.
2. Heard T.Arockia Dass, 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
http://www.judis.nic.in2/6
W.P.No.5581 of 2021
S.Sarvothaman v. The Sub Registrar at Oulgaret, Puducherry
[ 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.
6. So far as the court decree required to be registered in the present
petition is concerned, subject to what is herein above stated, the
Registering Authority is required to register the same. The petition is
http://www.judis.nic.in3/6
W.P.No.5581 of 2021
allowed in the manner indicated. No costs.
08.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Tsg
To
http://www.judis.nic.in4/6
W.P.No.5581 of 2021
1.The District Registrar,
O/o the District Registrar,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Barur Sub-Registrar Office,
Barur, Pochampalli Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
N.SESHASAYEE, J.,
http://www.judis.nic.in5/6
W.P.No.5581 of 2021
Tsg
Order made in
W.P.No.5581 of 2021
08.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in6/6
