Madras High Court
T.V.Rukmani vs The Inspector General Of ... on 27 June, 2022
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
T.V.Rukmani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Triplicane Sub Registrar Office,
Triplicane, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the record dated
19.05.2022 under Refusal Check slip vide Refusal Number:
RFL/Triplicane/15/2022 of the second respondent and quash the same and
consequently direct the second respondent to register the Decree dated
08.02.2019 made in O.S.No.6709 of 2018 on the file of the XV Additional
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : M/S.K.V.Sundararajan
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records dated 19.05.2022 under
Refusal Check slip vide Refusal Number: RFL/Triplicane/15/2022 of the
second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second
respondent to register the Decree dated 08.02.2019 made in O.S.No.6709 of
2018 on the file of the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader
takes notice for the respondents. In view of the limited relief sought for in
this petition and on the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing
on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner got the property by
way of Compromise Decree dated 08.02.2019 made in O.S.No.6709 of 2018
on the file of XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Further, the
petitioner obtained the copy of Decree on 30.04.2019. Thereafter, the
petitioner presented the Decree for Registration before the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
respondent on 19.05.2022. However, the said document was refused to be
registered by the second respondent on the ground that the decree has not
been presented for registration within the stipulated time. Challenging the
same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that, no time limit is prescribed for registering a
document in the Registration Act and citing the reason for delay in
presenting the document, by the second respondent is not sustainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would relied 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. In the said
decision, the Division Bench of this Court followed the earlier Division
Bench decisions of this Court 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's decree is not a compulsorily registrable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
document and the option lies with the party in such circumstances. He
would particularly rely on paragraphs 6 to 9 of the above decision in
W.P.No.9577 of 2021, 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 judgment reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
"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."
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submitted that, the application of the petitioner, seeking
registering the Civil Court's decree was rejected under Section 23 of the
Registration Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
obtained a decree dated 08.02.2019 in O.S.No.6709 of 2018. When the said
decree was presented before the second respondent for register the same, it
was rejected by citing Section 23 of the Registration Act. The rejection
order is wholly in contravention of the order passed in Lingeswaran's case
(supra), and ratio laid down therein is squarely applicable to the present
case.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the second respondent is set aside and the second respondent is
directed to register the decree in O.S.No.6709 of 2018 dated 08.02.2019
passed by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in
accordance with law, if otherwise in order. No costs.
27.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
jd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Triplicane Sub Registrar Office,
Triplicane, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
jd
W.P.No.15933 of 2022
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
