Nachimuthu vs The Sub-Registrar
2022 Latest Caselaw 13696 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13696 Mad
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2022

Madras High Court

Nachimuthu vs The Sub-Registrar on 2 August, 2022

W.P. No.19358 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.08.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

W.P. No.19358 of 2022

Nachimuthu ... Petitioner
Vs.

The Sub-Registrar,
Uthukkuli Sub Registrar Office,
Tiruppur District. ... Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip in refusal number
RFL/Uthukkuli/5/2022 dated 30.06.2022 and to quash the same as illegal
and incompetent and consequently direct the respondent to register the
decree dated 01.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.327 of 2012 on the file of District
Munsif Court, Avinashi.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad
For Respondent : 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 pertaining to the Refusal

Check Slip in refusal number RFL/Uthukkuli/5/2022 dated 30.06.2022 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No.19358 of 2022

to quash the same as illegal and incompetent and consequently direct the

respondent to register the decree dated 01.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.327 of

2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Avinashi.

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 Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his brother,

namely Chenniappan have filed a Suit in O.S.No.327 of 2012 on the file of

the District Munsif Court, Avinashi against one Chennimalai Gounder and

five others, seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

Thereafter, the trial Court had decreed the said Suit by its judgment and

decree dated 01.09.2016. In order to register the said judgment and decree

dated 01.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.327 of 2012, the petitioner herein

presented the same before the respondent herein on 30.06.2022 for

registration. However, the said document was refused to be registered by the

respondent on the ground that the decree has not been presented for

registration within the stipulated time. Challenging the same, the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No.19358 of 2022

had 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 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 a Court's 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P. No.19358 of 2022

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:

"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

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

W.P. No.19358 of 2022

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