Ramasamy vs The Sub Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 17968 Mad

                                                                             W.P(MD)No.15553 of 2021


                        BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED : 02.09.2021

                                                         CORAM

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

                                               W.P(MD)No.15553 of 2021


                Ramasamy                                                          ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                The Sub Registrar,
                Velliyanai Sub Registrar Office,
                Karur District.                                                    ... 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 pertaining to the impugned order issued by the respondent vide his
                proceedings in AA/Thi/Mu/ N 73/2021 dated 24.02.2021 and quash the same
                and consequently directing the respondent to register the decree granted in
                O.S.No.339/2007 dated 15.06.2009 by the learned Sub Court, Karur under
                Section 23 of the Registration Act in respect of the property situated at
                Tirumalainathanpatti, Velliyanai North Village, Karur District.


                                   For Petitioner      : Mr.M.Palani Raja
                                   For Respondent      : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
                                                        Counsel for State




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




                1/5
                                                                                 W.P(MD)No.15553 of 2021


                                                       ORDER

The petitioner challenges an order dated 24.02.2021 by which the

petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2021 was rejected.

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property

bearing Survey No.811/A3 of an extent of about 0.25 Cents at

Tirumalainathanpatti, Velliyanai North Village, Karur District.

3. According to the petitioner, one Valliyammal and her husband

created a forged settlement deed dated 19.08.1957 in respect of the aforesaid

property. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No.339 of 2007 before the Sub

Court, Karur seeking a permanent injunction against the above mentioned

persons. Such suit was decreed on 15.06.2009 and the appeal suit filed by the

defendant came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 05.03.2010.

4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner submitted the

representation dated 12.02.2021, whereby the petitioner requested that the

encumbrance in favour of Valliyammal be removed and also that the decree in

O.S.No.339 of 2007 as also the decree in A.S.No.52 of 2009 be registered.

Such request was rejected by the impugned order. The present Writ Petition

challenges the said order.

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

W.P(MD)No.15553 of 2021

5. Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on

behalf of the sole respondent. He submits that the registration authorities

cannot act on a unilateral request for deletion of an entry in the Encumbrance

Certificate. However, he states that the second aspect relating to the request for

registration of the Court decrees has not been addressed in the impugned order.

6. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the

respondent has only addressed one aspect of the petitioner's request, i.e., the

request for deletion of the entry in the Encumbrance Certificate. As regards

such aspect, the registration authorities have indicated that a unilateral request

for the deletion of an entry in the Encumbrance Certificate cannot be

entertained and that the registration authorities do not have such authority.

However, the second aspect of the petitioner's request has not been adverted to

at all. In this regard, it may be mentioned that this Court has held in several

cases that the time limit prescribed in Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908

does not apply to the registration of Court decrees. Such aspect may also have

to be taken into consideration when the matter is remitted to the respondent.

7. For the reasons set out above, the matter is remitted to the

respondent for reconsideration with regard to the registration of the decrees

mentioned above. The petitioner is directed to resubmit the relevant documents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

to the respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a

W.P(MD)No.15553 of 2021

copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondent is directed to

reexamine the petitioner's request for registration of the Court decrees and pass

a reasoned order in respect thereof within a period of thirty (30) days from the

date of receipt of the resubmitted document and also taking into account the

observations contained in this order.

8. Accordingly, W.P.(MD).No.15553 of 2021 is disposed of on

these terms without any order as to costs.

                                                                                      02.09.2021

                Index              : Yes / No
                Internet           : Yes/ No
                tsg/LM

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 Sub Registrar, Velliyanai Sub Registrar Office, Karur District.

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

W.P(MD)No.15553 of 2021

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

tsg/LM

W.P(MD)No.15553 of 2021

02.09.2021

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