Madras High Court
P.Maheshwaran vs The Inspector General Of ... on 5 August, 2022
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
P.Maheshwaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Chennai Central Joint-II,
Kavignar Bharatidasan Road,
MIG Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 108. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the order passed
in Refusal Number: RFL/Chennai Central Joint II/3/2022 dated 25.07.2022
refusing the Registration of the Final Decree in 23.04.2018 passed in
A.No.3561 of 2001 in C.S.No.770 of 1998 on the file of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras by the second respondent as unsustainable in law and
quash the same and direct the second respondent to register the final decree
dated 23.04.2018 passed in A.No.3561 of 2001 in C.S.No.770 of 1998 on the
file of High Court of Judicature at Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Abraham Prabhu
For Respondents : 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 order passed in Refusal Number:
RFL/Chennai Central Joint II/3/2022 dated 25.07.2022, refusing the
Registration of the Final Decree in 23.04.2018 passed in A.No.3561 of 2001
in C.S.No.770 of 1998 on the file of this Court, by the second respondent, as
unsustainable in law and quash the same and direct the second respondent to
register the final decree dated 23.04.2018 passed in A.No.3561 of 2001 in
C.S.No.770 of 1998 on the file of this Court.
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, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed a suit for partitioning
the larger extent of the property together with other properties among the co-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
sharers. When the said suit was pending for final decree in A.No.3561 of
2001, compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Further, the
petitioner had obtained the certified copy of the final decree dated
23.04.2018 in A.No.3561 of 2001 in C.S.No.770 of 1998 on the file of this
Court. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the said judgment and decree
dated 23.04.2018 before the second respondent on 25.07.2022. However, the
second respondent refused to register the final decree dated 23.04.2018 and
passed the impugned order dated 25.07.2022, on the ground that the decree
has not been presented for registration within the stipulated time. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that, no time limit is prescribed under the
Registration Act for registering a document, and citing the reason for delay
in presenting the document, by the respondents, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
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."
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that, the application of the petitioner, seeking to
register the Civil Court's decree, was rejected under Section 23 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
Registration Act.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
obtained a final decree dated 23.04.2018 in A.No.3561 of 2001 in
C.S.No.770 of 1998. When the said decree was presented before the
respondents for registering the same, it 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), and ratio laid down therein is
squarely applicable to the present case.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the second respondent is set aside and the second respondent is
directed to register the decree dated 23.04.2018 passed in A.No.3561 of 2001
in C.S.No.770 of 1998, on the file of this Court, in accordance with law, if it
is otherwise in order. No costs.
05.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes/ No
jd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Chennai Central Joint-II,
Kavignar Bharatidasan Road,
MIG Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 108.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
jd
W.P. No.19975 of 2022
05.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
