Madras High Court
Mrs.Navaneetham vs The Sub Registrar on 7 February, 2022
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. No. 1697 of 2022
and
W.M.P.Nos.1840 & 1841 of 2022
1.Mrs.Navaneetham
2.Mr.G.Sukumar
3.G.Rajendran
4.Mr.G.Delli Raj
5.Mrs.V.Mallika ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Sub Registrar
Royapuram
Chennai – 600 021. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for and
examining the entire records relating to and connected with the
proceedings in A.THI.MU. No.28/2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar,
Royapuram the respondent herein resulting in his order dated 19.01.2007
made therein and to quash the same and consequentially directing the
respondent herein to receive the certified copy of the compromise decree
dated 13.09.2001 and made in A.S.No.338 of 2000 on the file of the
Court of the IV Additional City Civil Judge at Chennai and register the
same as a document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Abdul Kader
For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for and examining the entire records
relating to and connected with the proceedings dated 19.01.2007 on the
file of the Sub-Registrar, Royapuram and to quash the same.
Consequentially directing the respondent herein to receive the certified
copy of the compromise decree dated 13.09.2001 and made in
A.S.No.338 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional City
Civil Judge at Chennai and register the same as a document.
2. It is stated that the First Petitioner is the mother of Second
Petitioner, Third and Fourth Petitioners are his brothers and the Fifth
Petitioner is surviving sister of the Second Petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the property consisting of
the house and ground bearing door No.227, Surya Narayana Chetty
Street, Royapuram, Chennai-600 013, measuring in extent of Two Ares,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
which is equal to 2153 square feet comprised in R.S.No.3050/39 of
Tondiarpet Revenue Division, Chennai District belonged originally to
one Madhava Chettiar. The said Madhava Chettiar had a son by name
Mr.Govindan, who is the husband of the First Petitioner. The said
Madhava Chettiar created a mortgage in respect of the property in favour
of one Mr.Rajendra Kumar on 21.02.1972 for having borrowed
Rs.10,000/-. The said Mr.Rajendra Kumar brought the property to sale
by auction under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. Sri Raj and
Co., conducted auction on 07.09.1983 and Mr.P.C.Jain was declared as a
successful bidder and got a sale deed executed in favour of Mr.P.C.Jain
on 22.02.1984.
4. Further, it is stated that Mr.Govindan died and his wife
Navaneetham and his sons Sukumar , Rajendran, Delli Raj and daughters
Mrs.Mallika and Mrs. Nirmala claiming to have inherited the property
and filed a suit in O.S.No.428 of 1989 against Mr.Rajendra Kumar and
Mr.P.C.Jain challenging the sale of the property before the learned V
Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. The said suit was dismissed by
judgment and decree dated 24.06.1997 by the learned V Assistant City
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
Civil Judge, Chennai. Mrs. Nirmala and Mrs.Navaneetham died during
the pendency of the suit.
5. Later the surviving children preferred an appeal in
A.S.No.338 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Judge,
Chennai. The parties to the appeal arrived at a settlement, while the
appeal was pending and filed a memorandum of compromise on
13.09.2001. A decree in terms of the memorandum of compromise was
passed by the learned IV Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai and the
petitioners were recognised as the absolute owners of the property. The
property continued to be and still is in the possession and enjoyment of
the petitioners. However, the title of the petitioners to the property in
question and the Sub Registrar issued a proceedings dated 19.01.2007.
Aggrieved by the same the petitioners are constrained to move the
present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue
arises in the present case has already been settled by this Court on several
orders that mere delay will not deny the right of the register to renew the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
encumbrance of the property. In support of his contention, the learned
counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.336 of 2019 dated 07.02.2019. Accordingly, he prays
to allow the writ petition.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
Respondent did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
8. Heard the counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Special
Government Pleader for the Respondent and perused the materials placed
on record.
9. The issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the
earlier Order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.336 of 2019, dated 07.02.2019. The relevant portions of the
order are extracted here under:
''6. The legal question involved in the instant case
is as to whether the respondent could have refused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
registration of the said decree passed in O.S. No.6 of
1968 dated 29.4.1970 on the ground that it was
presented beyond the time limit prescribed under Section
23 of the Act. Since the legal question is no longer res
integra and the respondent having not taken note of the
legal issue, this Court is of the view that said the writ
petition is maintainable and the appellant need not be
driven to avail the alternate remedy available under the
Act. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the
learned Additional Government Pleader stands rejected.
.........................
13. As pointed out by us earlier, we need to first
address the legal issue, which arises for consideration as
to whether at all the law of limitation as prescribed
under Section 23 of the Act would apply to a court
decree.
14. This question is no longer res integra and this
Court has consistently held that the law of limitation will
not apply when a court decree is presented for
registration. Earliest of the decisions, which has been
followed consistently by a Division Bench of this Court is
in the case of A.K. Gnanasankar Vs Joint-II Sub-
Registrar, Cuddalore-2 [reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68]. In
the said decision, this Court held that the limitation
prescribed for presenting a document does not apply to a
decree, as it is a permanent record of the court and to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
register the same, no limitation is prescribed.
15. This decision was followed by one of us (TSSJ)
in W.P.No.9352 of 2015 dated 31.3.2015 [B.Vijayan Vs.
District Registrar & another]. Subsequently, a similar
view had been taken by this Court in W.P.No.8247 of
2016 dated 07.3.2016 [G.Mudiyarasan & another Vs.
Inspector General of Registration], which once again
relied upon the decision in the case of A.K.Gnanasankar.
Further, in the case of Arun Kumar Vs. Inspector
General of Registration [W.P.No.16569 of 2016 dated
06.6.2016], this Court directed registration of a
judgment and decree passed by the Principal District
Munsif Court, Salem by condoning the delay on an
application filed by the person presenting the document
and in that decision, this Court referred to the decision
in the case of Rasammal Vs. Pauline Edwin & others
[reported in 2011 (2) MLJ 57] wherein the Court
considered the scope of Section 25 of the Act.
16. Again, in the case of P.A.Duraisamy Vs.
Registrar, Registration Department, Coimbatore &
another [W.P.No.2824 of 2013 dated 26.10.2016], an
identical view had been taken following the decision in
the case of A.K.Gnanasankar. A similar view was taken
in the case of Lakshmi Vs. Sub-Registrar, Valapady,
Salem District [reported in 2017 (1) LW 721] wherein it
was pointed out that the Proviso to Section 23 of the Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
states that a copy of the decree may be presented within
four months from the date, on which, the decree or order
was made or where it is appealable, within four months
from the day, on which, it becomes final, that the
limitation prescribed under Section 23 of the Act should
be read with in consonance with Section 25 of the Act
and that since they were only directory in nature, the
check slip issued by the respondent therein was held to
be bad in law.
17. In the case of A1362 Meenakshi Cooperative
Building Society Ltd. Vs. District Registrar & Others
[WP (MD) No.5108 of 2018 dated 12.4.2018], this Court
followed the decision in the case of A.K. Gnanasankar
and directed registration of the court decree. In yet
another decision in the case of Dr.Sulochana Vs.
Inspector General of Registration [reported in 2017 (2)
CWC 489], this Court held that registration is only a
part of procedural law and that though the Statute is
fiscal, the doctrine of purposive and reasonable
interpretation has application. This Court took note of
the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of
Anjinamma Vs. Puttahariyappa [reported in AIR 2003
Karnataka 24].
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shreenath Vs. Rajesh [reported in 1998 (4) SCC 543],
held that in interpreting any procedural law, when more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
than one interpretation is possible, the one, which
curtails the procedure without eluding justice, is to be
adopted, that the procedural law is always subservient to
and is in aid of justice and that any interpretation, which
eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be
followed.
19. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in the case of Padala Satyanarayana Murthy Vs.
Padala Gangamma [reported in AIR 1959 AP 626]
answered a reference as to whether Section 77 of the
Indian Registration Act bars a suit on the basis of an
unregistered Will, when the Sub-Registrar refused to
admit it for registration. It was held that Section 17 of
the Act enumerates the documents, which require
registration and the effect of failure to observe it is stated
in Section 47 and that under Section 18(c) of the Act, the
registration of a Will is purely optional and that being
so, the Full Bench expressed that they did not think that
the consequences contemplated by Section 49 would flow
from not having recourse to Section 77 of the Act. It was
further held that a party cannot be compelled to get
document registered if such an obligation is not cast by
the provisions of the Registration Act, that the necessity
for registration arises only in regard to document set out
in Section 17, that no penalty can attach to the omission
to get a document registered when it is excepted by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
Section 17 and that therefore, the Full Bench felt that
Section 77 can have relation only to instrument falling
within the ambit of Section 17.
20. The decision in the case of Padala
Satyanarayana Murthy was followed by the Allahabad
High Court in the decision in the case of Rama Pati
Tiwari Vs. District Registrar, Allahabad [reported in AIR
2009 Allahabad 102].
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.
22. Having set out the legal position in the above
terms in favour of the appellant, now we proceed to
examine as to whether there was any delay in
presentation of the decree and in other words, whether
the court decree was presented beyond the period of four
months.
23. The decree in O.S.No.6 of 1968 was passed on
29.4.1970. This decree was the subject matter of
challenge in C.S.No.149 of 1980, in which, the judgment
was delivered on 28.10.1995. Challenging the said
decree dated 28.10.1995, an appeal was filed before a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.299 of 1996, in
which, the appellant herein was the first respondent. One
of the issues, which was framed for consideration by the
Division Bench, was as to whether the compromise
decree dated 29.4.1970 passed in O.S.No.6 of 1968 on
the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry, is not
binding on the plaintiff’s share. The Division Bench
dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated
20.3.2002. Challenging the said judgment and decree
dated 20.3.2002, a special leave petition in
SLP.(C).No.8268 of 2002 was filed and it was dismissed
vide order dated 01.11.2002.''
(emphasis added)
10. The above judgment will squarely apply to the facts of the
present case. In view of the settled position of law, the proceedings in
A.THI.MU. No.28/2007, dated 19.01.2007 by the respondent, is hereby
quashed and the respondent is further directed to register the compromise
decree submitted by the petitioners, if it is otherwise in order and subject
to payment of necessary Stamp duty and Registration fees.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
11. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
07.02.2022
rli
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
The Sub Registrar
Royapuram
Chennai – 600 021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1697 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J
rli
W.P. No. 1697 of 2022
Dated : 07.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
