Madras High Court
S.Subramani vs The District Registrar on 1 April, 2022
W.P.No.7889 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.7889 of 2022
S.Subramani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Registrar,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Kangeyam,
Tiruppur District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of order
dated 09.03.2022 in Refusal Check Slip Number:RFL/Kangeyam/38/2022
on the file of 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct
the 2nd respondent to register and release the decree dated 28.03.2013
passed in O.S.No.248 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge No.3
at Dharapuram to the petitioner within stipulated time as fixed by this Court.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7889 of 2022
For petitioner : M/S.K.Myilsamy
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of order dated 09.03.2022 in
Refusal Check Slip Number:RFL/Kangeyam/38/2022 on the file of second
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second
respondent to register and release the decree dated 28.03.2013 passed in
O.S.No.248 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge No.3 at
Dharapuram to the petitioner, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.
2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader
takes notice for the respondent. In view of the limited relief sought for in
this petition and on the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing
on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a Suit in
O.S.No.248 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Judge No.3 at
Dharapuram, seeking partition, separate possession and permanent
injunction. Thereafter, the petitioner had obtained a preliminary decree by
allotting 1/3rd share in his favour. Further, the petitioner is intended to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7889 of 2022
settle his property in favour of his children. Therefore, the petitioner
presented a document before the second respondent for registration based
on the decree. However, the said document was refused to be registered by
the second respondent on the ground that the decree has not been presented
for registration within a stipulated time. Challenging the same, the petitioner
has filed the present Writ Petition.
4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that, no time limit is prescribed for registering a
document in the Registration Act and citing the reason for delay in
presenting the document, by the respondent is not sustainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would relied on a decision of
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Lingeswaran vs
The Sub Registrar in W.P.No.9577 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021. In the said
decision, the Division Bench of this Court followed the earlier Division
Bench decisions of this Court reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68
(A.K.Gnanasankar vs. Joint -II Sub Registrar, Cuddalore) and 2019 (3)
MLJ 571 (S.Sarvothaman vs. The Sub-Registrar, Oulgarpet ), wherein the
Court held that, the Court's decree is not a compulsorily registrable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7889 of 2022
document and the option lies with the party in such circumstances. He
would particularly rely on paragraphs 6 to 9 of the above decision in
W.P.No.9577 of 2021, which are extracted hereunder:
"6. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Padala
Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Padala Gangamma, reported in AIR 1959
AP 626, has held that a decree/order passed by a competent Court is
not compulsorily registrable document and the party cannot be
compelled to get the document registered when there is no obligation
cast upon him to register the same. Subsequently, a Division Bench of
this Court in A.K.Gnanasankar Vs. Joint-II Sub Registrar, Cuddalore
reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68, has held that, a decree is a permanent
record of Court and the limitation prescribed for presentation of the
document under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, is not
applicable to a decree presented for registration.
7. The above judgments have been followed in number of
judgments of this Court and recently another Division Bench of this
Court in S.Sarvothaman Vs. The Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret reported in
(2019) 3 MLJ 571 has held that, as the Court decree is not a
compulsorily registerable document and the limitation prescribed
under the Registration Act would not stand attracted for registering
any decree. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7889 of 2022
"21. By applying the decision in the case of Padala
Satyanarayana Murthy to the facts of the case, the only
conclusion that could be arrived at is that a court decree is
not compulsorily registerable and that the option lies with
the party. In such circumstances, the law laid down by this
Court clearly states that the limitation prescribed under
the Act would not stand attracted."
8. The above judgment was followed in Anitha Vs. The
Inspector of Registration in W.P.No.24857 of 2014 dated 01.03.2021,
wherein it is held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of a
Court decree on the ground of limitation.
9. In view of the above settled position of law, the 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. In such circumstances, the impugned refusal check
slip issued by the respondent is not sustainable and it is liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order passed by the respondent is set aside and the respondent is
directed to register the decree, if it is otherwise in order. No costs."
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent submitted that, the application of the petitioner, seeking
registering the Civil Court's decree was rejected under Section 23 of the
Registration Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7889 of 2022
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
obtained a preliminary decree dated 28.03.2013 in O.S.No.248 of 2010.
When the said preliminary decree was presented before the 2nd respondent
for register the same, it was rejected by citing section 23 of the Registration
Act. The rejection order is wholly in contravention of the order passed in
Lingeswaran's case (supra), and ratio laid down therein is squarely
applicable to the present case.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the second respondent is set aside and the second respondent is
directed to register the preliminary decree in O.S.No.248 of 2010 dated
28.03.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Dharapuram, in
accordance with law, if otherwise in order. No costs.
01.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
jd/lpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7889 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
jd/lpp
To
1. The District Registrar,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Kangeyam,
Tiruppur District.
W.P.No.7889 of 2022
01.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
