Madras High Court
Rajathi vs The Inspector General Of ... on 8 April, 2022
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
Rajathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai - 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office, Bargur,
Krishnagiri. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to register the decree
and Judgment dated 24.07.2019 in I.A.No.276/2018 in O.S.No.83/2017
passed by the Hon'ble Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.
For petitioner : Mr.G.Babu
For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to the
respondents to register the decree and Judgment dated 24.07.2019 in
I.A.No.276/2018 in O.S.No.83/2017 passed by the Principal District Court,
Krishnagiri.
2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader
takes notice for the respondents. 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 purchased the
property comprised in S.No.641/1B, measuring an extent of 1500 Sq.ft,
situated at Bargur Village by a Sale Deed dated 01.04.2006, bearing
document no.603/2006. Thereafter, the petitioner had executed the said
property in favour of his son by a registered gift Settlement Deed dated
01.02.2007. After executing the Settlement Deed, the petitioner's son was
died on 01.07.2015, leaving behind the petitioner, his wife and children.
Thereafter, there was some dispute, thereby the petitioner filed a suit in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
O.S.No.83/2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri,for
partition of 1/3rd share in the above said property and the preliminary decree
was passed in favour of the petitioner on 12.06.2018. Thereafter, the final
decree in I.A.No.276/2018 was passed on 24.07.2019. Thereafter, the
petitioner had presented the document before the third respondents on
25.10.2021 for registering the said final decree. However, the said
document was refused to be registered by the third respondent on the
ground that the document was not presented for registration within a period
of four months from the date of passing of final decree. Challenging the
same, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the above
relief.
4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that, no time limit is prescribed in the Registration
Act. Citing the reason for delay in presenting the document is not
sustainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
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, and in the
said decision the Division Bench of this Court followed the earlier decisions
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 decree
is not a compulsorily registrable document and the option lies with the party
in such circumstances. He would particularly rely on paragraphs 6 to 9 of
the above decision, 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
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:
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent submits that the said application was rejected under section 23
of the Registration Act.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
obtained the final decree. When the document was presented, the document
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), ratio is squarely applicable to the present case.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the third respondent
is directed to register the decree and Judgement in I.A.No.276 of 2018 in
O.S.No.83 of 2017 dated 24.07.2019 passed by the Principal District Court,
Krishnagiri, if it is otherwise in order, on payment of requisite Stamp Duty
and Registration Charges by the petitioner. No costs.
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
tri/mn
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai - 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office, Bargur,
Krishnagiri.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
tri/mn
W.P.No.8605 of 2022
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
