Madras High Court
Vijayakumar vs The Sub Registrar on 6 June, 2022
W.P.No.11505 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.11505 of 2022
Vijayakumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Rasipuram Sub-Registrar Office,
Erode.
...Respondent
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 Order made in Check Slip dated 29.03.2022 in RFL / Rasipuram / 41 /
2022 and consequently direct the respondent to register the decree in O.S.No.
30 of 2009 dated 23.11.2010 on the file of the learned Sub- Court Rasipuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prakash
For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the refusal
Check Slip dated 29.03.2022 in RFL / Rasipuram / 41 / 2022 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11505 of 2022
respondent and consequently direct the respondent to register the decree in
O.S.No. 30 of 2009, dated 23.11.2010 on the file of the learned Sub- Court
Rasipuram.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner filed a suit in
O.S.No.30 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Rasipuram claiming
partition of the sit schedule properties into 4 equal shares and allot one such
share to the petitioner and the said suit was decreed on 23.11.2010. The
petitioner presented the decree and application before the respondent for
registration on 29.03.2022, however, the respondent refused to register the
same, vide Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Rasipuram/41/2022 dated
29.03.2022 on the ground that the decree has been presented for registration
after a decade, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11505 of 2022
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
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-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11505 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11505 of 2022
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 Pleader appearing for the
respondents 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11505 of 2022
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 respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the
respondent and the respondent is directed to register the decree in
O.S.No.30 of 2009, dated 23.11.2010 passed by the learned Sub Court,
Rasipuram without referring the delay. No costs.
06.06.2022
rli
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
The Sub Registrar,
Rasipuram Sub-Registrar Office,
Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11505 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
rli
W.P.No.11505 of 2022
06.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
