Madras High Court
Suresh Babu vs The Registrar on 2 September, 2021
W.P.No.18216 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.18216 of 2021
Suresh Babu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar,
Rasipuram,
Salem.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Rasipuram,
Salem. ...
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file
of the 2nd respondent in Proceeding Refusal Check Slip
RFL/Rasipuram/60/2021 dated 29.07.2021 and quash the same as illegal,
incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the 2nd respondent to
register the decree in O.S.No.465 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Rasipuram dated 25.07.2003.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.P.No.18216 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner has filed a certiorarified mandamus to quash the
Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Rasipuram/60/2021 of the second respondent
dated 29.07.2021 and to direct the second respondent to register the
judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram passed in
O.S.No.465 of 1986 dated 25.07.2003.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he inherited a property in
S.No.30/1, Konneripatti, Salem to an extent of 48 cents vide partition
agreement dated 29.02.1980 when the petitioner was allotted the above said
property at that time he was only 13 years old. Taking advantage of the fact
that the petitioner was a minor, the petitioner's family executed a sale deed
on 08.03.1982 disposing the petitioner's share of the property. On attaining
majority, the petitioner challenged the sale deed dated 08.03.1982 before the
District Munsif Court, Rasipuram in O.S.No.465 of 1986 wherein he sought
for a relief of declaration and recovery of possession and after the trial, the
Court has decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner on 25.07.2003.
3.The petitioner submits that he filed R.E.P.No.25 of 2010 on the file
of the District Munsif, Rasipuram and recovery receipt was also issued on
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.18216 of 2021
28.12.2012. According to the petitioner, he had executed a executed a Gift
Deed in favour of his wife in respect of the property situated at S.No.30/1,
Konneripatti, Salem on 22.06.2015 and the said gift deed was also registered
as Document No.3052 of 2015 before the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram. As the
deed required certain clarification in boundaries, the petitioner executed a
rectification deed which was also registered on 22.02.2018 before the Sub
Registrar, Rasipuram vide Document No.144 of 2018 and these entries are
reflected in the Encumbrance certificate. The recitals of the document
would indicate that the petitioner traced title from the decree that is now
sought to be registered.
4.The petitioner further submits that he presented the judgment and
decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram in O.S.No.465 of
1986 for registration before the second respondent, the second respondent
did not accept the same and rejected vide his Refusal Check Slip dated
29.07.2021 stating that the document had not been presented within the time
prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908.
5.The petitioner submits that as per Section 23 of the Act regarding
time for presenting documents that a copy of a decree or order may be
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.18216 of 2021
presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was
made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which
it becomes final.
6.According to the petitioner, there is no justification or legal basis in
rejecting the application for registration. In the case of
PadalaSathyanarayana Murthy vs. PadalaGangamma reported in AIR
1959 AP 626, the Court held a decree/order passed by a competent Court is
not compulsorily registrable and the party cannot be compelled to get the
document registered when there is no obligation cast upon him to register the
same and also in a similar issue in the case of R.Gokilambal vs. The
District Registrar in W.P.No.9944 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021, the Court
held that the second respondent Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register the
decree on the ground that it is presented beyond the period prescribed under
Section 23 of the Registration Act and the said Refusal Check Slip has been
sets aside by the said Court and the writ petition was allowed. Relying upon
the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner prayed for allowing this writ petition.
7.The petitioner is left with no other remedy except to approach this
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.18216 of 2021
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ
petition filed.
8.On going through the said Refusal Check Slip, it states only belated
submission of documents which is not accepted by this Court. It is settled
position of law that the Sub Registrar cannot compel the petitioner to register
the same within a period of four months and there is no prohibition for
register the same as this being a judgment and decree of the Court.
9.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the Refusal
Check Slip No.RFL/Rasipuram/60/2021 dated 29.07.2021 passed by the
second respondent and the writ petition is allowed by directing the second
respondent to register the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court,
Rasipuram dated 25.07.2003 passed in O.S.No.465 of 1986 in accordance
with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No costs.
02.09.2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
pam
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.18216 of 2021
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN. J,
pam
To
1.The Registrar,
Rasipuram,
Salem.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Rasipuram,
Salem.
W.P.No.18216 of 2021
02.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
