Dhandapani vs The Sub-Registrar
2022 Latest Caselaw 11020 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11020 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 June, 2022

Madras High Court

Dhandapani vs The Sub-Registrar on 24 June, 2022

                                                                                   W.P.No.15881 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 24.06.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                     W.P.No.15881 of 2022

                     Dhandapani                                    ...Petitioner

                                                             Vs.

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

                     Prayer:-
                          Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
                     Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
                     impugned check slip T.P.No.122698370/2022 dated 10.06.2022 and quash
                     the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the said
                     compromise decree passed in I.A.No.1195 of 1967 in O.S.No.576 of 1966
                     dated 10.10.1967 and subsequently judgment and decree passed in
                     O.S.No.576 of 1966 dated 19.10.1967 on the file of the District Munsif of
                     Krishnagiri.

                                    For Petitioner       : M/s.Reshmi Christy

                                    For Respondent    : M/s.Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                  Special Government Pleader

                     1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        W.P.No.15881 of 2022



                                                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the proceedings

of the respondent dated 10.06.2022 refusing to register the Court decree

dated 10.10.1967 made in I.A.No.1195 of 1967 in O.S.No.576 of 1966 and

subsequently judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.576 of 1966 dated

19.10.1967 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, 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.288, 285/2,

287/2, 165/7, 179/7 at Choutahalli Village, Kaveripattinam Panchayat

Union, Krishnagiri District was originally belonged to one Nanjammal who

sold the said property to G.Perumal by way of sale deed registered as

Doc.No.1105/1966. While so, the said G.Perumal filed a Suit in O.S.No.576

of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, for declaration,

recovery of possession of 'A' schedule property and permanent injunction

upon 'B' schedule property against one Bukka @ Marimuthu Nayanar.

Thereafter, both the parties entered into a compromise deed in I.A.No.1195

of 1967, based on which a decree was passed in O.S.No.576 of 1966 on

19.10.1967 Thereby, the petitioner presented the same before the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15881 of 2022

respondent for registration on 10.06.2022, however, the respondent refused

to register the same, vide Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/

Kaveripattinam/7/2022 dated 10.06.2022 on the ground that the decree has

been presented for registration after huge delay, which is contrary to the

period stipulated in Section 23 & 25 of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence,

the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15881 of 2022

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 registerable document and the limitation prescribed under the Registration Act would not stand attracted for registering any decree. The relevant portion of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15881 of 2022

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 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.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15881 of 2022

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 Sub-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).