Rajesh vs The Sub Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 22493 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22493 Mad
Judgement Date : 17 November, 2021

Madras High Court

Rajesh vs The Sub Registrar on 17 November, 2021

                                                                                 W.P.No.24403 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 17.11.2021

                                                         CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  W.P.No.24403 of 2021

                     Rajesh                                               ...   Petitioner
                                                             -Vs-
                     The Sub Registrar,
                     Avalpoondurai,
                     Erode District.                                      ...   Respondent

                     Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandumus, to
                     call for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip in refusal number
                     RFL/Avalpoondurai/135/2021 dated 26.10.2021 and to quash the same
                     as illegal and incompetent and consequently direct the respondent to
                     register the amended decree dated 21.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.169 of
                     2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode.
                                            For Petitioner     : Mr.M.Guruprasad

                                            For Respondent     : Mr.A.Selvendran
                                                                 Special Government Pleader.

                                                        ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of

Certiorarified Mandumus, to call for the records pertaining to the Refusal

Check Slip in refusal number RFL/Avalpoondurai/135/2021 dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.24403 of 2021

26.10.2021 and to quash the same as illegal and incompetent and

consequently direct the respondent to register the amended decree dated

21.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.169 of 2019 on the file of the Principal

District Judge, Erode.

2. Heard, Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that pending Civil Suit between the

family members of the petitioner, they entered into a compromise. In

view of the compromise, the properties were settled in respect of their

respective shares and the said settlement memo had been recorded in

O.S.No.169 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode. As

per settlement, 'B' Schedule of the properties were alloted to the

petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition for amendment of schedule of

property and the same was allowed on 18.12.2019. Thereafter, the

petitioner presented the same before the respondent, on receipt of the

same, it was pending as document No.137 of 2019. Further, the

respondent directed the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.27,500/- for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.24403 of 2021

delay in presenting the document for registration, as per Section 25 of the

Registration Act, 1908.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the penalty and the decree was

registered as document No.231 of 2020 by the respondent. Thereafter,

the petitioner came to know that the portion of the property in the 'B'

Schedule property in survey numbers have been recorded in old survey

number. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to make sub division in

the subject property. As per the amendment petition in I.A.No.68 of

2021 in O.S.No.169 of 2019 to amend the old survey numbers to new

survey numbers and the same was allowed on 25.03.2021 and obtained

certified copy of the same on 07.10.2021. Again, the petitioner presented

the said decree before the respondent for registration on 26.10.2021.

However, it was returned for the reason that it was presented for

registration after lapse of 240 days from the date of execution.

5. The very same issue had already been settled by this Court in

W.P.No.3012 of 2020, wherein it was held as follows :

“5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants the decree to be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.24403 of 2021

registered mainly on the ground that his title has been declared to the property and he wants it to be reflected in the encumbrance certificate. The learned counsel submitted that, even though Section 23 of the Registration Act provides for a limitation, the same is only directory in nature and it is not mandatory. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in K.Krishnan vs. Inspector General of Registration and Another reported in (2019) 6 MLJ 523. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Lakshmi vs. The Sub Registrar, Valapady, Salem District reported in 2017 1 LW 721.

6.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the respondent had refused the registration only after noticing the relief of mandatory injunction. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the specific stand taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner can be directed to present the decree again for registration and the same will be taken on file by the respondent and the same will be registered in accordance with law.

7.In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner wants the decree to be registered since his title has been declared by a competent civil Court with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.24403 of 2021

regard to the suit property. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the limitation provided under Section 23 of the Registration Act is only directory in nature and it cannot be put against the petitioner who wants to register the Court decree. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner will squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

8.In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to represent the decree before the respondent and the respondent on receipt of the document shall take it on file and register the same in accordance with law.”

6. That apart, the petitioner had already paid a sum of

Rs.27,500/- towards the delay for registration of the decree. The delay

was not the fault of the petitioner and only due to the above said reasons.

Therefore, the limitation prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration

Act is not applicable for the Civil Court decree and levying of penalty by

the respondent is illegal and the same is non-est of law.

7. In view of the above, the impugned Refusal Check Slip in

refusal number RFL/Avalpoondurai/135/2021 dated 26.10.2021, is liable

to be set aside. The petitioner is directed to re-present the decree before

the respondent and on receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.24403 of 2021

8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.