Madras High Court
K.Palanisamy vs The Sub Registrar on 20 June, 2022
W.P.No.15258 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.15258 of 2022
K.Palanisamy ... Petitioner
versus
The Sub Registrar,
O/o.The Sub Registrar,
Mohanur,
Namakkal District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned refusal check slip dated 21.04.2022 issued by the
respondent and quash the same and further directing the respondent to
register the said decree passed in O.S.No.590 of 2003 dated 23.04.2004
which was presented on 21.04.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Abrar Md Abdullah
For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15258 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the
proceedings of the respondent dated 21.04.2022 refusing to register the
Court decree dated 23.04.2004 made in O.S.No.590 of 2003 on the file of
the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal and for a consequential
direction to the respondent to register the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the property in
S.No.259/1B situated at Tholur Village, Namakkal District was owned by
the petitioner's family. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Suit for declaration in
O.S.No.590 of 2003, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif,
Namakkal and the said suit was decreed on 23.04.2004. Thereby, the
petitioner presented the application before the respondent for registration on
19.04.2022, however, the respondent refused to register the same, vide
Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/ Moganur/68/ 2022 dated 21.04.2022 on the
ground that the decree has been presented for registration after 8 months,
which is contrary to the period stipulated in Section 23 & 25 of the
Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15258 of 2022
3. The 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15258 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15258 of 2022
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 Pleader appearing for
the respondent submitted that the said application was rejected under section
23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of a
Court decree 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 Lingeswaran'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 respondent is set aside and the matter is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15258 of 2022
remanded to the respondent and the respondent is directed to register the
decree in O.S.No.590 of 2003, dated 23.04.2004 passed by learned
Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, without referring the delay. No costs.
20.06.2022
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
sri
To
1.The Additional District Munsif,
Namakkal .
2.The Sub Registrar,
O/o.The Sub Registrar,
Mohanur,
Namakkal District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15258 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sri
W.P.No.15258 of 2022
20.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
