Madras High Court
P.Radhakrishnan vs The Inspector General Of ... on 5 August, 2022
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
P.Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The District Registrar (Administration),
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Thirunavalur,
Kallakuruchi District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order issued by the third respondent herein dated
27.01.2022 in Proceeding No.RFL/Thirunavalur/2/2022 and the impugned
order issued by the second respondent herein dated 22.03.2022 in
Na.Ka.No.820/Aa1/2022, quash the same and direct the third respondent
herein to Register the Decree of Partition dated 30.04.2015 in I.A.No.480 of
2022 in O.S.No.2/1999 by the I Additional District Munsif cum JM1,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
Ulundurpet.
For Petitioner : Mr.Venkataswamy Babu
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 records relating to the impugned
order issued by the third respondent herein dated 27.01.2022 in Proceeding
No.RFL/Thirunavalur/2/2022 and the impugned order issued by the second
respondent herein dated 22.03.2022 in Na.Ka.No.820/Aa1/2022, quash the
same and direct the third respondent herein to Register the Decree of
Partition dated 30.04.2015 in I.A.No.480 of 2022 in O.S.No.2/1999 by the I
Additional District Munsif cum JM1, Ulundurpet.
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, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed a Civil Suit in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
O.S.No.2 of 1999 before the I Additional District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Ulundurpet for partition of his ancestral properties. The
said Suit was decreed on 30.04.2015 by way of final decree in I.A.No.480 of
2022. Thereafter, the petitioner had received the certified copy of judgment
and decree on 06.09.2019, and the same was presented before the third
respondent on 27.01.2022. However, the said document was returned by the
third respondent with the impugned order, on the ground that the decree has
not been presented for registration within the stipulated time. Therefore, the
petitioner made a representation along with the order of the third respondent
on 27.01.2022 before the second respondent, seeking to direct the third
respondent to register the said document. However, the second respondent,
by the impugned order dated 22.03.2022, confirmed the order of the third
respondent herein. Thereafter, once again, the petitioner made a
representation dated 24.05.2022 before the first respondent herein against the
order of second and third respondents and to set aside the orders. On receipt
of such representation, the first respondent has not taken any action.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
document in the Registration Act 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
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
Registration Act.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
obtained a decree dated 30.04.2015 in I.A.No.480 of 2022 in O.S.No.2 of
1999. 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 orders
passed by the second and third respondents are set aside and the third
respondent is directed to register the decree in I.A.No.480 of 2022 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
O.S.No.2 of 1999 dated 30.04.2015 passed by the I Additional District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ulundurpet in accordance with law, if
it is otherwise in order. No costs.
05.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes/ No
jd
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The District Registrar (Administration),
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Sub Registrar,
Thirunavalur,
Kallakuruchi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
jd
W.P. No.19936 of 2022
05.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
