Madras High Court
Tamilalagan vs The Sub-Registrar on 6 June, 2022
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
Tamilalagan ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Jalagandapuram, Salem District. ...Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned proceedings of
the respondent dated 18.02.2022 in Check Slip No.1 of 2022, quash the
same and consequently direct the respondent herein to register the certified
copy of Preliminary decree dated 20.02.2015 made in O.S.No.176 of 2012
and Final Decree dated 20.11.2017 made in I.A.No.760 of 2015 in
O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional District Court,
Salem, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ramakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan,
Special Government Pleader
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ petition for quashment of the
proceedings of the respondent dated 18.02.2022 in Check Slip No.1 of 2022
refusing to register the Preliminary decree dated 20.02.2015 made in
O.S.No.176 of 2012 and Final Decree dated 20.11.2017 made in I.A.No.760
of 2015 in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Court,
Salem and for a consequential direction to the respondent to register the
same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, his father viz., Annamalai filed a
suit in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge
Court, Salem for partition and separate possession as against the other
family members, claiming 2/3rd share in respect of the suit properties
comprised S.No.516/1. The petitioner's father claimed 1/3rd share based on
inheritance and another 1/3rd share based on decree dated 21.12.2005
passed in Performance Suit in O.S.No.131 of 2005 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Sankari. Further, the preliminary decree in the said suit in
O.S.No.176 of 2012 was passed on 20.02.2015 and subsequently, the final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
decree was passed on 20.11.2017 by the I Additional District Judge Court,
Salem, allotting 3.26 acres out of 4.89 acres in New.S.No.516/1A to
plaintiffs therein. Thereafter, Execution Petition was filed for delivery of
possession in R.E.P.No.171 of 2018 in O.S.No.176 of 2012 and possession
was delivered to the plaintiffs on 27.10.2021. Immediately thereafter, the
said Preliminary decree dated 20.02.2015 and Final Decree dated
20.11.2017 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem were
presented before the respondent for registration on 18.02.2022, however, the
respondent refused to register the same, vide Check Slip No.1 of 2022 dated
18.02.2022, on the ground that the decree has been presented for
registration beyond the time period stipulated, which is contrary to the
period stipulated in Section 23 & 25 of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence,
challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
applied for certified copy of the said decree on 02.11.2011 in Copy
Application Number 8841 of 2021 and the same was made ready on
21.01.2021 and was received only on 23.12.2021. He further submitted that,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
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. Hence,
he prayed for appropriate orders.
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.11171 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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
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. 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. Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
7. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
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).
8. 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 Preliminary decree
dated 20.02.2015 made in O.S.No.176 of 2012 and Final Decree dated
20.11.2017 made in I.A.No.760 of 2015 in O.S.No.176 of 2012 passed by
the I Additional District Court, Salem without referring the delay. No costs.
06.06.2022
skt
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Jalagandapuram, Salem District.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
skt
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11171 of 2022
06.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
