Madras High Court
G.Ramamurthy vs The Inspector General Of ... on 13 June, 2022
W.P.No.14477 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.14477 of 2022
G.Ramamurthy ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Chennai South,
Selaiyur, Chennai. ...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records from the 2nd
respondent in connection with the impugned proceedings / Refusal Check
Slip No.RFL/Selaiyur/11/2022 dated 24.05.2022, quash the same, and
consequential direction, directing the 2nd respondent to register the Certified
Copy of the Consent Decree dated 23.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.410 of
2006, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kancheepuram at
Chengalpattu, on payment of registration charges alone without insisting for
payment of any stamp duty and without insisting on the period of limitation
under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Srikanth
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Spl.GP
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14477 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this Writ petition for quashment of the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 24.05.2022 in Refusal Check Slip
RFL/Selaiyur/11/2022, refusing to register the Court Decree dated
23.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.410 of 2006, on the file of the Additional
District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu and for a consequential
direction to the 2nd respondent to register the same.
2. Learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the
respondents. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on
either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, he filed a suit in O.S.No.410 of
2006 on the file of District Judge at Chengalpattu, against his brothers,
seeking partition of his 1/5th share in the suit property. When the said suit
was pending, the petitioner and his brothers settled the issue amicably
among themselves. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Compromise dated
02.11.2015 was filed before the Trial Court and thereby, the suit was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14477 of 2022
decreed on 23.08.2016, in terms of the compromise entered into between the
parties. Subsequently, when the petitioner presented the said Consent
Decree dated 23.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.410 of 2006 for registration on
24.05.2022, the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings
dated 24.05.2022 in Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Selaiyur/11/2022, on the
ground that the decree has not been presented for registration within the
time prescribed under Section 23 & 25 of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence,
the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time limit is
prescribed in the Registration Act, 1908 with regard to registration of the
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.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14477 of 2022
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-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.14477 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 said application was rejected under section
23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14477 of 2022
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
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 2nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the
2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to register the decree
dated 23.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.410 of 2006, by the Additional District
Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu without referring the delay. No costs.
13.06.2022
skt
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14477 of 2022
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub-Registrar,
Chennai South,
Selaiyur, Chennai.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
skt
W.P.No.14477 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14477 of 2022
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
