Madras High Court
C.Mariyappan vs The Inspector General Of ... on 11 August, 2022
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.19693 of 2022
C.Mariyappan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai-600028.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Karimangalam Sub-Registrar,
Karimangalam,
Dharmapuri District. ...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certioraraified Mandamus calling for the entire records from the
2nd respondent in connection with the impugned proceedings/Refusal
Cheque Slip No. RFL/ Karimangalam/77/2022 dated 28.7.2022 and quash
the same and consequential direction directing the 2nd respondent to
register the Certified copy of the Order dated 19.06.2007 passed in
O.S.No.52/2003 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Palacode on payment of registration charges along without insisting for
payment of any Stamp Duty and without insisting on the period of limitation
under Section 2 of the Registration Act 1908.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam
For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of
Certioraraified Mandamus calling for the entire records from the 2nd
respondent in connection with the impugned proceedings/Refusal Cheque
Slip No. RFL/ Karimangalam/77/2022 dated 28.7.2022 and quash the same
and consequential direction directing the 2nd respondent to register the
Certified copy of the Order dated 19.06.2007 passed in O.S.No.52/2003 on
the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Palacode on payment of
registration charges along without insisting for payment of any Stamp Duty
and without insisting on the period of limitation under Section 2 of the
Registration Act 1908.
2. The learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the
official respondent. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel
appearing for either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained a final
decree in suit in O.S.No.52 of 2003, on the file o District Munsif Cum
Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, Dharmapuri District, on 19.06.2007. He
presented the same for registration before the respondents. However, the
same was returned by stating that there is a delay in registering the
document on 28.07.2022. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is
filed with the aforesaid prayer.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
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.
7. The above judgments have been followed in
number of judgments of this Court and recently another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
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 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
obtained a compromise decree. When the document was presented,
however, the document was rejected by citing section 23 of the Registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
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.52 of 2003 dated 19.06.2007 passed by the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Palacode, on the receipt of the
necessary stamp duty and registration charges and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
11.08.2022
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
psa
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinampakkam,
Chennai-600028.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Karimangalam Sub-Registrar,
Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
psa
W.P.No.20578 of 2022
11.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
