Madras High Court

P.Saraswathi vs The Sub Registrar on 28 February, 2022

                                                                                       W.P.No.4023 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                      DATED : 28.02.2022
                                                           CORAM
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
                                                      W.P.No.4023 of 2022

                     P.Saraswathi                                                ... Petitioner
                                                              Vs.

                     The Sub Registrar,
                     Thondamuthur Sub Registrar Office,
                     Narasipuram road,
                     Thondamuthur,
                     Coimbatore 641 109.                                          ... Respondent


                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to
                     the proceedings made in Refusal check slip RFL/Thondamuthur/12/2021
                     dated 28.12.2021 and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and
                     consequently direct the Respondent herein to register the Decree made in
                     O.S.No.895 of 2013 dated 13.07.2017 on the file of II Additional
                     Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.


                                     For petitioner           : Mr.S.Karthikei Balan
                                     For Respondent           : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                                Special Government Pleader

                                                            ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4023 of 2022

The petitioner has filed this petition to call for the records pertaining

to the proceedings made in Refusal check slip RFL/Thondamuthur/12/2021

dated 28.12.2021 and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and

consequently direct the Respondent herein to register the Decree made in

O.S.No.895 of 2013 dated 13.07.2017 on the file of II Additional

Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

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 petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is the owner of the

property in S.F.No.1082/4N1 and S.F.No.1082/4NA measuring an extent of

3.82 acres situated in Ikkaraiboluvampatti village, Coimbatore Taluk,

Coimbatore Registration District. Thereafter, a Suit in O.S.No.895 of 2013

was filed by the Canara Bank against the petitioner on the file of II

Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. However, the said suit was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4023 of 2022

decreed by an order dated 13.06.2017 and thereafter, no appeal has been

preferred by the bank. Thereafter, the petitioner presented a document to the

respondent to register the certified copy of the final Decree dated

13.06.2017. However, the said document was rejected on the ground that

the limitation period of four months for registering the Decree has been

elapsed. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed by the

petitioner.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4023 of 2022

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4023 of 2022

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4023 of 2022

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