Madras High Court
Parameswari Devi vs The Inspector General Of ... on 26 July, 2022
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
Parameswari Devi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600028.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sowcarpet,
O/o. The SRO, Sowcarpet.
11, Davidson Street, Sowcarpet,
Chennai-600079. ...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to register the Final Decree
dated 01.08.2015 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2007 in O.S.No.5331 of 1996 by
the 19th Additional City Civil Court, Chennai on the petitioner paying the
necessary registration charges as required under the law.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.T.M.Pappiah
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of
Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to register the Final Decree dated
01.08.2015 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2007 in O.S.No.5331 of 1996 by the 19 th
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai on the petitioner paying the necessary
registration charges as required under the law.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the
official respondents. In view of the consent expressed by the learned
counsel appearing for either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
obtained a decree in I.A.No.52 of 2007 in O.S.No.5331 of 1996, on the file
of the learned 19th Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and the same was
presented for registration. However, the same was not entertained, on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
ground of delay. Hence, the learned counsel submitted 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.
4. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
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
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.”
5. The learned Special Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent submitted that the said application was rejected under section 23
of the Registration Act.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is possessed of a Court decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
which when presented was not entertained citing 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).
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the
2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to register the decree in
I.A.No.52 of 2007 in O.S.No.52 of 2007 dated 01.08.2015 passed by the
learned 19th Additional City Civil Court, Chennai without referring the
delay. No costs.
26.07.2022
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
Psa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600028.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sowcarpet,
O/o. The SRO, Sowcarpet.
11, Davidson Street, Sowcarpet,
Chennai-600079
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
Psa
W.P.No.18984 of 2022
26.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
