Madras High Court
J.Suguna vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 6 June, 2022
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
J.Suguna ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Commercial Taxes,
Registration and Stamps Act,
Secretariat,
St.George Fort,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate,
Chennai – 600 028.
3.The District Registrar,
Registration District of Central Chennai,
No.268, Bharathi Salai,
Express Estate,
Royapettah,
Chennai – 600 014.
4.The Sub Registrar (in the rank of the District Registrar),
Sub – Registration District of Kodambakkam,
No.375, Alagiri Nagar,
5th Street, 100 ft. Road,
Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 026. ... Respondents
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the 4 th respondent in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.88/2020 dated 24.03.2022 and quash the same and direct
the 4th respondent to register the Decree and Judgment dated
26.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.5179 of 2005 on the file of XVIII Asst.
City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pushpakaran
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.88/2020, dated 24.03.2022 and to quash the same and to
direct the fourth respondent to register the Decree and Judgment
dated 26.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.5179 of 2005 on the file of XVIII
Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
2.The case of the petitioner is that one V.Nancy Rekha and
V.Henry Peterson filed a suit in O.S.No.5179 of 2005 on the file of the
XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and the said suit was
dismissed for default on 26.11.2012. Thereafter, the said decree was
presented before the fourth respondent for registration and the fourth
respondent passed the impugned order refusing to register the same
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 a suit and further submitted that the issue arises in the present 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
respondents did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
5.Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
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
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 order passed by the fourth respondent
dated 24.03.2022 is hereby set aside. The fourth respondent is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
directed to register the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2012 passed
in O.S.No.5179 of 2005 by the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Commercial Taxes,
Registration and Stamps Act,
Secretariat,
St.George Fort,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate,
Chennai – 600 028.
3.The District Registrar,
Registration District of Central Chennai,
No.268, Bharathi Salai,
Express Estate,
Royapettah,
Chennai – 600 014.
4.The Sub Registrar (in the rank of the District Registrar),
Sub – Registration District of Kodambakkam,
No.375, Alagiri Nagar,
5th Street, 100 ft. Road,
Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 026.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.12366 of 2022
06.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
