Madras High Court
R.Pushpavathy vs The District Registrar on 18 April, 2022
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
W.M.P.No.9339 of 2022
R.Pushpavathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Thasildar,
Tiruppur North Taluk,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
4.K.Paramasivam
5.P.Sivakumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in
connection with the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the first
respondent in petition No.61/2021 and quash the same and consequently
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
direct the first respondent to cancel the illegally and fraudulently registered
documents in the Doc.Nos.384/2015 and 385/2015 dated 22.01.2015
pending on the file of the first respondent and incidentally make necessary
entries in the Encumbrance Certificate.
For petitioner : Mr.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records in connection with the impugned order
dated 28.02.2022 passed by the first respondent in petition No.61/2021 and
quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to cancel the
illegally and fraudulently registered documents in the Doc.Nos.384/2015
and 385/2015 dated 22.01.2015 pending on the file of the first respondent
and incidentally make necessary entries in the Encumbrance Certificate.
2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader
takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
3.Since, no adverse order being passed against the fourth and fifth
respondents. Notice to the fourth and fifth respondents is dispensed with.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the properties comprised in
S.F.No.137/2A2,measuring an extent of 1.25 acres, situated at Nallur
Village, belongs to petitioner's father. Thereafter, the petitioner's father
executed the Settlement Deed dated 30.12.2012 in favour of petitioner.
However, the fourth and fifth respondents in order to grab the property, they
illegally obtained the Settlement Deeds in Doc.Nos.384/2015 and 385/2015.
Challenging the same, the petitioner filed I.A.No.685/2015 in O.S.No.247 of
2015 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Tiruppur and obtained decree in
his favour. Thereafter, the petitioner had made an application on 06.12.2021
before the first respondent to cancel the fraudulent document nos.384/2015
and 385/2015, and the same was rejected by the first respondent, by order
dated 28.02.2022 on the ground that, petitioner had made application
beyond the period of four years from the date of obtaining decree in his
favour. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
5. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present petition is no longer
res integra. He further 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, wherein the Division Bench
following its earlier decisions 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 ), 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
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.9600 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
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.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent submits that the said application was rejected under section 23
of the Registration Act.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
obtained the decree in his favour. 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), which ratio is squarely applicable to the present
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
9. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned order passed by the first respondent and permits the petitioner to
present the document before the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such a
document is presented the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar is directed to register
the document without referring to any delay, within a period of four weeks,
if it is otherwise in order, on payment of requisite Stamp Duty and
Registration Charges by the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
18.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
tri/mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
To
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Thasildar,
Tiruppur North Taluk,
Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
tri/mn
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
W.M.P.No.9339 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9600 of 2022
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
