Ambika vs The Sub Registrar
2022 Latest Caselaw 6752 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6752 Mad
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2022

Madras High Court

Ambika vs The Sub Registrar on 31 March, 2022

                                                                                         W.P.No.7511 of 2022

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED :31.03.2022

                                                     CORAM
                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                       W.P.No.7511 of 2022

                     Ambika                                                                ...Petitioner

                                                                Vs.

                     The Sub Registrar,
                     Registration Department,
                     Vellakovil,
                     Tiruppur District.                                                   ...Respondent


                                  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 Refusal Check Slip dt. 20.01.2022 vide Refusal Number in RFL/
                     Vellakovil/Book 2/1 on the file of the Respondent herein quash the same
                     and consequently direct the respondent herein to register the Decree dated
                     16.02.2021 passed in O.S.NO.51/2020 on the file of the Sub-Court
                     Kangayam.

                                              For Petitioner      : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

                                              For Respondent      : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                                    Special Government Pleader




                     1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                           W.P.No.7511 of 2022

                                                              ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition to call for the records relating to

the impugned Refusal Check Slip dt. 20.01.2022 vide Refusal Number in

RFL/ Vellakovil/Book 2/1 on the file of the Respondent herein quash the

same and consequently direct the respondent herein to register the Decree

dated 16.02.2021 passed in O.S.NO.51/2020 on the file of the Sub-Court

Kangayam.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a suit in

O.S.No.51 of 2021, on the file of the Sub-Court, Kangeyam for partition.

The suit was decreed on 16.02.2021. The petitioner's mother was died on

20.01.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent to register

the decree dated 16.02.2021, however, the respondent refused to register the

same, vide Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/ Vellakovil/ Book 2/ 1 dated

12.11.2021 on the ground that the decree has been presented for registration

after 8 months, which is contrary to the period stipulated in Section 23 & 25

of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time limit is

prescribed in the Registration Act with regard to registration of the deed

through Court decree. Therefore, citing delay in presenting the document as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7511 of 2022

reason for not registering the same is not sustainable.

4. 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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7511 of 2022

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:

"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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7511 of 2022

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.”

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent submitted that the said application was rejected under section 23

and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908.

6. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7511 of 2022

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).