Madras High Court
P.S.Shanmugam vs The Sub Registrar on 4 August, 2022
W.P.No.19918 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.19918 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.19220 of 2022
P.S.Shanmugam ...Petitioner
vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Omalur,
Salem District-636455. ... 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 the
respondent herein vide refusal check slip with refusal number
RFL/Omalur/97/202 dated 09.07.2022 quash the same and consequently
direct the respondent to register the Decree and Judgment dated 28.09.2016
in O.S.No.45 of 2014 passed by District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,
Omalur.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent : Mr. Yogeshkannadasan,
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition to call for the records of the
respondent herein vide refusal check slip with refusal number
RFL/Omalur/97/202 dated 09.07.2022 quash the same and consequently
direct the respondent to register the Decree and Judgment dated 28.09.2016
in O.S.No.45 of 2014 passed by District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,
Omalur.
2. Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Advocate
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
for either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner filed a suit in
O.S.No.45 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial
Magistrate, Omalur, for declaration and permanent injunction. Thereafter,
the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 28.09.2016. Thereafter,
the petitioner presented a document based on the decree before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2021
respondent on 21.06.2022. However, the said document was rejected on the
ground that the document was presented beyond the period of limitation.
Hence, the present petition is filed.
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2021
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2021
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2021
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 Advocate appearing for the
respondents submit that the said application was rejected under section 23
of the Registration Act.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
and her sister obtained compromise decree. When the document was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2021
presented, however, 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 impugned order
passed by the respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to
register the decree in O.S.No.45 of 2014 dated 28.09.2016 passed by
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Omalur, on the receipt of the
necessary stamp duty and registration charges and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
04.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
psa
To
The Sub Registrar,
Omalur,
Salem District-636455.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19918 of 2021
psa
W.P.No.19918 of 2022
04.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
