Madras High Court
Visaka Bala Sarasu vs The State Represented By on 15 November, 2021
W.P(MD)No.20416 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD)No.20416 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.17061 and 17063 of 2021
1.Visaka Bala Sarasu
2.Yuga Shanmuga Priya
3.Saravanakumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State represented by
The Joint Sub Registrar-I,
Dindigul. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the respondent relating to refusal number RFL-1, dated 03.09.2021
and quash the same in the light of Judgment in (2019)3 MLJ 517 and direct the
respondent to register the compromise decree in O.S.No.49/2017 dated
22.08.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Additional District Court
Dindigul.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20416 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Jayakumar
For Respondent : Mr.D.Gandhiraj,
Special Government Pleader.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners
involved themselves with a partition suit in O.S.No.49 of 2017 before the
District Court at Dindigul. The said suit was with respect to the properties of
one Subramanian. The first petitioner is his widow, the second petitioner is his
daughter and the third petitioner is his son.
2. Subsequently, wisdom dawned on them and they entered into
compromise with respect to the issues and presented a compromise before the
District Court at Dindigul which also recorded the same and a compromise
decree was passed on 22.08.2019. The said judgment was then presented for
registration before the respondent herein on 03.09.2019. However, placing
reliance on Section 24 which provides that any decree should be presented for
registration within a period of four (4) months, the respondent had refused
registration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20416 of 2021
3. Heard Mr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Special Government Pleader,
who took notice on behalf of the respondent.
4. The issue is no longer res integra as the said provision has been
interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court and also by learned Single Judges
who had, stated that the said provision would not apply to decrees of Court and
had consistently extended the period of presentation of the Court decree for
registration much beyond the period as prescribed under Section 24 of the
Registration Act, 1908.
5. Those judgments are instructive for this particular case also and
in this connection, let me place reliance on the judgment reported in
S.Sarvothaman Vs. The Sub Registrar (2019) 3 MLJ 571 wherein the Court
had held that the Court decree is not a compulsorily registrable document and
that the limitation period under the Registration Act would not get attracted for
registering any decree.
6. A direction is therefore given to the respondent herein to register
the said compromise decree when it is again presented before the Registrar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20416 of 2021
provided the petitioners pay necessary stamp duty and registration charges and
if the presentation is otherwise in order.
7. With the said observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
15.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm/Nsr
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.
To
The Joint Sub Registrar-I,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20416 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Lm/Nsr
W.P(MD)No.20416 of 2021
15.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
