Ravi vs The District Registrar
2022 Latest Caselaw 11657 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11657 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 July, 2022

Madras High Court

Ravi vs The District Registrar on 1 July, 2022

                                                                                  W.P.No.16565 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 01.07.2022

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                    W.P.No.16565 of 2022

                  Ravi                                                      ...Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                  1.The District Registrar,
                    Salem.

                  2.The Joint Sub Registrar No.1,
                    Salem East,
                    District Registrar Office,
                    Salem.                                                   ...Respondents


                        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
                  Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned
                  order passed by the 2nd respondent in Refusal Number RFL/No.1 Joint Sub
                  Registrar, Salem East/77/2021 dated 25.10.2021 and quash the same and
                  consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the document executed by
                  the II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem in O.S.No.614/2019 dated
                  30.09.2020.

                                   For Petitioner       : Mr.T.Ganesan

                                   For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                     Special Government Pleader




                  1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    W.P.No.16565 of 2022



                                                        ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the proceedings

of the second respondent in Refusal Number RFL/No.1 Joint Sub Registrar,

Salem East/77/2021 dated 25.10.2021 and for a consequential direction to

the second respondent to register the document executed by the II Additional

Subordinate Court, Salem in O.S.No.614/2019 dated 30.09.2020.

2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader takes

notice for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on

either side, this Writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission

stage itself.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has filed a suit in

O.S.No.614 of 2019 before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem in

respect of the property to an extent of 675 sq.ft. Situated at Ammapet Village,

Salem District in S.No.367/14. The suit was settled in Lok Adalat on

18.03.2020. Based on the settlement, the learned II Additional Subordinate

Judge, Salem passed a decree and Judgment in the above suit. Thereafter, due

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16565 of 2022

to Covid Pandamic situation, the petitioner was unable to take steps to

before the second respondent for registration on 25.10.2021, however, the

second respondent refused to register the same, vide Refusal Check Slip

No.RFL/ No.1 Joint Sub Registrar, Salem East/77/2021 dated 25.10.2021 on

the ground that the time is lapsed, which is contrary to the period stipulated

in Section 23 & 25 of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the present Writ

Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time limit is

prescribed in the Registration Act with regard to registration of the deed

through Court decree. Therefore, citing delay in presenting the document as

reason for not registering the same 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,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16565 of 2022

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16565 of 2022

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 slip issued by the respondent is not sustainable and it is liable to be set

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16565 of 2022

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 said application was rejected under section 23

and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of a Court

decree, which when presented was not entertained citing the delay in

submission. It is to be pointed out that this Court in a catena of decisions had

held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of a Court decree on the

ground of limitation. That being the case, the facts in the present case are

identical to Ligeswaran's case and the ratio laid therein stands squarely

attracted. Therefore, the rejection order is wholly in contravention of the

order passed in Lingeswaran's case (supra).

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order