Madras High Court

Srinivasan vs The Sub Registrar on 25 March, 2022

                                                                                   W.P.No.6853 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 25.03.2022

                                                       CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                 W.P.No.6853 of 2022
                                                        and
                                                W.M.P.No.6912 of 2022

                     Srinivasan                                                 ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                     The Sub Registrar,
                     Mecheri,
                     Salem District.                                            ... Respondent

                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records with respect
                     of the impugned proceedings passed by the respondent in Check Slip
                     No.05/2022 dated 22.02.2022 and quash the same and consequently
                     directing the respondent herein to register the final decree proceedings dated
                     21.07.1999 passed in O.S.No.295 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court,
                     Mettur.

                                     For petitioner        : M/S.T.Venkatesan
                                     For Respondents       : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                             Special Government Pleader

                                                       ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6853 of 2022

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records with respect of the

impugned proceedings passed by the respondent in Check Slip No.05/2022

dated 22.02.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the

respondent herein to register the final decree proceedings dated 21.07.1999

passed in O.S.No.295 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Mettur.

2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader

takes notice for the respondent. In view of the limited relief sought for in

this petition and on the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing

on either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father had filed a

Suit for partition in O.S.No.295 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Ordinate

Court, Sankari. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Sub-Court,

Mettur. The said Suit was decreed on 21.07.1999 to effect partition, the

petitioner's father filed an application for passing final decree in I.A.No.305

of 1999 in O.S.No.295 of 1999. The Sub Court has passed the final decree

on 21.07.1999 in I.A.No.305 of 1999 in O.S.No.295 of 1999, by allotting

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6853 of 2022

the shares to the petitioner's father and other legal heirs. Pursuant to the

final decree, the petitioner's father is in the possession of the property. After

the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner is in possession of the

property and he verified the Encumbrance Certificate, from which, he came

to know that the Court's decree was not registered in the office of the

respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed copy application before the Civil

Court and after receipt of the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree, in

the said suit, the same were presented before the respondent for registering

the Court's decree through Checkslip No.05/2022 dated 26.11.2019.

However, the said document was refused to be registered by the respondent

on the ground that the decree has not been presented for registration within

the stipulated time. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present

Writ Petition.

4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that, no time limit is prescribed for registering a

document in the Registration Act and citing the reason for delay in

presenting the document, by the respondent is not sustainable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6853 of 2022

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would relied 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. In the said

decision, the Division Bench of this Court followed the earlier Division

Bench decisions of this Court 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's 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 in

W.P.No.9577 of 2021, 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6853 of 2022

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6853 of 2022

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

respondent submitted that, the application of the petitioner, seeking

registering the Civil Court's decree was rejected under Section 23 of the