Madras High Court
P.Baskaran vs The Joint - 1 Sub Registrar on 6 June, 2022
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
P.Baskaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Joint - 1 Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Coimbatore. ... Respondent
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
respondent herein pertaining to the refusal check slip dated
31.03.2022 issued by the respondent herein, quash the same and
consequently directing the respondent herein to register the decree
dated 25.02.2014 in A.S.No.57/2012 on the file of Principal
Subordinate Judges Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.R.Prasanan
For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
respondent pertaining to the refusal check slip dated 31.03.2022
issued by the respondent, quash the same and to consequently direct
the respondent to register the decree dated 25.02.2014 in A.S.No.57
of 2012 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judges Court, Coimbatore.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed the suit in
O.S.No.542 of 2009 before the III Additional District Munsif Court,
Coimbatore, for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent
injunction and the said suit was dismissed on 22.02.2012. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal in A.S.No.57 of 2012
before the Principal Subordinate Judges Court, Coimbatore and the
said appeal was allowed on 25.02.2014. Thereafter, the said decree
was presented before the respondent for registration on 31.03.2022
and on the same day the respondent issued the refusal check slip
refusing to register the decree on the ground of delay. Hence, this
petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that there is no period of limitation for registering the decree obtained
in an appeal and further submitted that the issue arises in the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
case has already been settled by this Court. In support of his
contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.336 of 2019
dated 07.02.2019.
4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
5.Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused
the materials placed on record.
6.The issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by
the earlier judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.336 of 2019, dated 07.02.2019, the relevant portion
of which reads as follows:
''6. The legal question involved in the
instant case is as to whether the respondent
could have refused registration of the said
decree passed in O.S. No.6 of 1968 dated
29.4.1970 on the ground that it was presented
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
beyond the time limit prescribed under Section
23 of the Act. Since the legal question is no
longer res integra and the respondent having
not taken note of the legal issue, this Court is
of the view that said the writ petition is
maintainable and the appellant need not be
driven to avail the alternate remedy available
under the Act. Accordingly, the preliminary
objection raised by the learned Additional
Government Pleader stands rejected.
.........................
13. As pointed out by us earlier, we need
to first address the legal issue, which arises for
consideration as to whether at all the law of
limitation as prescribed under Section 23 of
the Act would apply to a court decree.
14. This question is no longer res integra
and this Court has consistently held that the
law of limitation will not apply when a court
decree is presented for registration. Earliest of
the decisions, which has been followed
consistently by a Division Bench of this Court
is in the case of A.K. Gnanasankar Vs Joint-II
Sub-Registrar, Cuddalore-2 [reported in 2007
(2) TCJ 68]. In the said decision, this Court
held that the limitation prescribed for
presenting a document does not apply to a
decree, as it is a permanent record of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
court and to register the same, no limitation is
prescribed.
15. This decision was followed by one of
us (TSSJ) in W.P.No.9352 of 2015 dated
31.3.2015 [B.Vijayan Vs. District Registrar &
another]. Subsequently, a similar view had
been taken by this Court in W.P.No.8247 of
2016 dated 07.3.2016 [G.Mudiyarasan &
another Vs. Inspector General of Registration],
which once again relied upon the decision in
the case of A.K.Gnanasankar. Further, in the
case of Arun Kumar Vs. Inspector General of
Registration [W.P.No.16569 of 2016 dated
06.6.2016], this Court directed registration of
a judgment and decree passed by the Principal
District Munsif Court, Salem by condoning the
delay on an application filed by the person
presenting the document and in that decision,
this Court referred to the decision in the case
of Rasammal Vs. Pauline Edwin & others
[reported in 2011 (2) MLJ 57] wherein the
Court considered the scope of Section 25 of
the Act.
16. Again, in the case of P.A.Duraisamy
Vs. Registrar, Registration Department,
Coimbatore & another [W.P.No.2824 of 2013
dated 26.10.2016], an identical view had been
taken following the decision in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
A.K.Gnanasankar. A similar view was taken in
the case of Lakshmi Vs. Sub-Registrar,
Valapady, Salem District [reported in 2017 (1)
LW 721] wherein it was pointed out that the
Proviso to Section 23 of the Act states that a
copy of the decree may be presented within
four months from the date, on which, the
decree or order was made or where it is
appealable, within four months from the day,
on which, it becomes final, that the limitation
prescribed under Section 23 of the Act should
be read with in consonance with Section 25 of
the Act and that since they were only directory
in nature, the check slip issued by the
respondent therein was held to be bad in law.
17. In the case of A1362 Meenakshi
Cooperative Building Society Ltd. Vs. District
Registrar & Others [WP (MD) No.5108 of 2018
dated 12.4.2018], this Court followed the
decision in the case of A.K. Gnanasankar and
directed registration of the court decree. In yet
another decision in the case of Dr.Sulochana
Vs. Inspector General of Registration [reported
in 2017 (2) CWC 489], this Court held that
registration is only a part of procedural law
and that though the Statute is fiscal, the
doctrine of purposive and reasonable
interpretation has application. This Court took
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
note of the decision of the Karnataka High
Court in the case of Anjinamma Vs.
Puttahariyappa [reported in AIR 2003
Karnataka 24].
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shreenath Vs. Rajesh [reported in
1998 (4) SCC 543], held that in interpreting
any procedural law, when more than one
interpretation is possible, the one, which
curtails the procedure without eluding justice,
is to be adopted, that the procedural law is
always subservient to and is in aid of justice
and that any interpretation, which eludes or
frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be
followed.
19. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in the case of Padala
Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Padala Gangamma
[reported in AIR 1959 AP 626] answered a
reference as to whether Section 77 of the
Indian Registration Act bars a suit on the basis
of an unregistered Will, when the Sub-
Registrar refused to admit it for registration. It
was held that Section 17 of the Act
enumerates the documents, which require
registration and the effect of failure to observe
it is stated in Section 47 and that under
Section 18(c) of the Act, the registration of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
Will is purely optional and that being so, the
Full Bench expressed that they did not think
that the consequences contemplated by
Section 49 would flow from not having
recourse to Section 77 of the Act. It was
further held that a party cannot be compelled
to get document registered if such an
obligation is not cast by the provisions of the
Registration Act, that the necessity for
registration arises only in regard to document
set out in Section 17, that no penalty can
attach to the omission to get a document
registered when it is excepted by Section 17
and that therefore, the Full Bench felt that
Section 77 can have relation only to
instrument falling within the ambit of Section
20. The decision in the case of Padala
Satyanarayana Murthy was followed by the
Allahabad High Court in the decision in the
case of Rama Pati Tiwari Vs. District Registrar,
Allahabad [reported in AIR 2009 Allahabad
102].
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
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.
22. Having set out the legal position in
the above terms in favour of the appellant,
now we proceed to examine as to whether
there was any delay in presentation of the
decree and in other words, whether the court
decree was presented beyond the period of
four months.
23. The decree in O.S.No.6 of 1968 was
passed on 29.4.1970. This decree was the
subject matter of challenge in C.S.No.149 of
1980, in which, the judgment was delivered on
28.10.1995. Challenging the said decree dated
28.10.1995, an appeal was filed before a
Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.299 of
1996, in which, the appellant herein was the
first respondent. One of the issues, which was
framed for consideration by the Division
Bench, was as to whether the compromise
decree dated 29.4.1970 passed in O.S.No.6 of
1968 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Puducherry, is not binding on the plaintiff’s
share. The Division Bench dismissed the
appeal by judgment and decree dated
20.3.2002. Challenging the said judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
decree dated 20.3.2002, a special leave
petition in SLP.(C).No.8268 of 2002 was filed
and it was dismissed vide order dated
01.11.2002.''
[emphasis supplied]
7.The above judgment will squarely apply to the facts of the
present case. The impugned refusal check slip passed by the
respondent dated 31.03.2022 is hereby set aside. The respondent is
directed to register the decree dated 25.02.2014 in A.S.No.57 of 2012
passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, if it is
otherwise in order and subject to payment of necessary stamp duty
and registration fees.
8.This writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
06.06.2022
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
The Joint - 1 Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.12411 of 2022
06.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
