V.Shanmugam vs The Sub-Registrar
2022 Latest Caselaw 382 Mad

                                                                                         W.P.No.60 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 06.01.2022

                                                           CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                     W.P.No.60 of 2022

                     V.Shanmugam                                             ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs


                     The Sub-Registrar
                     Office of the Sub-Registrar,
                     Kaveripattinam,
                     Krishnagiri District.                                  ... Respondent

                                  Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
                     relating to the impugned check slip T.P.No.10743591/20-21, dated
                     30.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to
                     register the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.131 of 1994 dated
                     22.08.1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

                                  For Petitioner       :   Mr.T.N.Murali Moghan

                                  For Respondent      :    Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                           Special Government Pleader




                     1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     W.P.No.60 of 2022



                                                        ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, to call calling for the records relating to the impugned check

slip T.P.No.10743591/20-21, dated 30.12.2021 and quash the same and

consequently direct the respondent to register the said judgment and decree

passed in O.S.No.131 of 1994 dated 22.08.1996 on the file of the

Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

2. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale in respect of

the property comprised in S.No.477, ad-measuring an extent of 0.13.0

hectares (28 cents), situated at Kundalapatti Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, vide

registered sale agreement dated 29.01.1992 executed by one K.A.Sankaran

and 3 others. However, the petitioner's vendor avoided execution of sale

deed in favour of him and as such, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.131

of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri for specific

performance on the strength of the agreement of sale dated 29.01.1992. The

vendors were set ex-parte and the ex-parte judgment and decree was also

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.60 of 2022

passed on 22.08.1996. After payment of entire sale consideration, the

Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, executed the sale deed in favour of the

petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the judgment and decree

dated 22.08.1996 passed in O.S.No.131 of 1994 for registration before the

respondent. However, by the impugned check slip, dated 03.12.2021, the

respondent refused to accept and register judgment and decree on the

ground that the same is barred by limitation.

3. This Court repeatedly held that the limitation prescribed for

registration registering Court decree is not applicable. Therefore, the

respondent cannot refuse to register any order or decree on the ground that

the same has been presented beyond the period of limitation provided under

Section 23 of the Registration Act. Hence, the respondent shall entertain the

certified copy of the decree that is presented by the petitioner and shall

register the same.

4. Insofar as the registration fee is concerned, the law is no longer

res-integra as settled by this Court and the registration fees should be levied

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.60 of 2022

only on the total value of the suit and not on the value of the property.

Therefore, the respondent cannot insist for payment of the registration fees

based on the value of the property.

5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated

30.12.2021 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to re-present the judgment

and decree passed in O.S.No.131 of 1994, dated 22.08.1996 for registration

along with registration fees on the value of the suit. On receipt of the same,

the respondent is directed to register and release the same forthwith, if it is

otherwise in order.

6. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

06.01.2022

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes kv

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.60 of 2022

To

The Sub-Registrar Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.60 of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

kv

W.P.No.60 of 2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.60 of 2022

06.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis