Madras High Court
D.Mageswari vs The Inspector General Of ... on 29 April, 2022
W.P.No.11205 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.11205 of 2022
D.Mageswari ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Santhome, Chennai-4.
2. The Joint Sub-Registrar I,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Vellore. ...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to register the sale deed
bearing Pending Document No.110 of 2021, dated 04.08.2021 on the file of
the second respondent as a regular document and release the same to the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11205 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus to direct the respondents to register the sale deed bearing
Pending Document No.110 of 2021, dated 04.08.2021 on the file of the 2nd
respondent and release the same to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, she has entered into an agreement
of sale with one P.Natarajan for purchase of agricultural lands measuring an
extent of 2.82 Acres comprised in S.Nos.51, 52/1 and 53, under Patta
No.354, situated at Thellur village, Vellore taluk, Vellore District under
sale agreement dated 30.03.2009 in Doc.No.2828 / 2009. Whileso, as the
said Natarajan, the land owner refused for execution of sale deed within the
stipulated time, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.118 of 2010 on the file
of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore. Thereafter, the said suit was
decreed in favour of the petitioner, granting specific performance of the sale
agreement dated 30.03.2009. Pursuant to the said decree, the petitioner after
depositing the balance amount, levied execution of decree, vide
O.E.P.No.83 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11205 of 2022
Execution Court executed the sale deed on 17.03.2020 and directed the
registry to submit the same for registration before the 2nd respondent.
However, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the same was not complied within the
stipulated time. Thereafter, an appointment for registration was fixed online
on 02.08.2021 and the sale deed was submitted before the 2nd respondent
on 04.08.2021 for registration, however, the 2nd respondent refused to
complete the registration on the ground that the document was not presented
within the time stipulated under Section 23 of the registration Act, 1908 and
delay being more than six months not condonable under Section 25 and kept
it as Pending Doc.No.110 of 2021. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the
present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time limit is
prescribed in the Registration Act with regard to registration of the deed
through Court decree. Therefore, citing delay in presenting the document as
reason for not registering the same is not sustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11205 of 2022
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely 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, 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,
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11205 of 2022
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
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.11205 of 2022
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that the said document was kept pending on the
ground of delay in presentation as per section 23 and 25 of the Registration
Act, 1908.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of a Court
decree which when presented was not entertained citing delay in
submission. It is to be pointed out that this Court in a catena of decisions
had held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of a Court decree on
the ground of limitation. That being the case, the facts in the present case
are identical to Ligeswaran's case and the ratio laid therein stands squarely
attracted. Therefore, keeping the document presented as pending is wholly
in contravention of the order passed in Lingeswaran's case (supra).
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of and the matter is
remanded back to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to
register sale deed bearing Pending Doc.No.110 of 2021 dated 04.08.2021 in
the light of the decree passed in O.S.No 118 of 2010 dated 27.09.2018 on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11205 of 2022
the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore without
referring the delay. No costs.
29.04.2022
rli
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Registration Department,
Santhome, Chennai-4.
2. The Joint Sub-Registrar I,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Vellore.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
rli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11205 of 2022
W.P.No.11205 of 2022
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
