Madras High Court
K.Loganathan vs The District Registrar on 29 March, 2022
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
K.Loganathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Erode,
Erode District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Sivagiri Sub Registrar Office,
Sivagiri,
Erode District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned order made in Na.Ka.No.391/2022, dated 19.01.2022 passed
by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the
second respondent to register the Final Decree dated 31.10.2000 made in
I.A.No.660 of 1999 in O.S.No.199 of 1998 passed by the learned Principal
Sub Court, Erode, presented for registration on 16.08.2021 and release the
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
same after due registration.
For petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order made in
Na.Ka.No.391/2022, dated 19.01.2022 passed by the second respondent,
quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to register
the Final Decree dated 31.10.2000 made in I.A.No.660 of 1999 in
O.S.No.199 of 1998 passed by the learned Principal Sub Court, Erode,
presented for registration on 16.08.2021 and release the same after due
registration.
2. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader
takes notice for the respondents. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner along with her mother
and sister had filed a suit in O.S.No.199 of 1998 on the file of the Principal
Sub-Court, Erode, seeking for partition and separate possession, against her
father. Thereafter, the said suit was decreed on 31.10.2000, by the Principle
Sub Court, Erode. Thereafter, the petitioner presented a document on
16.08.2021, based on the final decree for registration before the second
respondent. However, the said document was refused to be registered by the
second respondent on the ground that the decree has not been presented for
registration within the time stipulated. Challenging the same, the present
writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Though very many grounds have been raised, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that, no time limit is prescribed in the Registration
Act. Citing the reason for delay in presenting the document is not
sustainable.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits that the said application was rejected under section 23
of the Registration Act.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
obtained the final decree. When the document was presented, the document
was rejected by citing section 23 of the Registration Act. The rejection order
is wholly in contravention of the order passed in Lingeswaran's case
(supra), ratio is squarely applicable to the present case.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the second respondent is set aside and the second respondent is
directed to register the decree in I.A.No.660 of 1999 in O.S.No.199 of 1998
dated 31.10.2000 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Erode, if it is otherwise
in order, on payment of necessary Stamp duty and Registration Charges. No
costs.
29.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
tri/nhs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
To
1.The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Erode,
Erode District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Sivagiri Sub Registrar Office,
Sivagiri,
Erode District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
tri/nhs
W.P.No.7219 of 2022
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
