Madras High Court
R.Kanagavel vs The Sub-Registrar on 19 October, 2022
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.10.2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
R.Kanagavel
...Petitioner
Versus
The Sub-Registrar,
Thondamuthur Sub-Registrar Office,
Thondamuthur,
Coimbatore District.
...Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records relating to the Refusal Check Slip bearing refusal
number:RFL/Thondamuthur/29/2022 dated 19.09.2022 passed by the
respondent quash the same as illegal, unlawful, malafide, without
jurisdiction and against principles of natural justice and consequently
directing the respondent to register the certified copy of the decree, dated
28.09.2010, passed in the suit in O.S.No.2254 of 2005 on the file of the III
Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore 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.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Sarojini
For Respondent : Mr.G.Krishnaraja,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records relating
to the Refusal Check Slip bearing Refusal
number:RFL/Thondamuthur/29/2022 dated 19.09.2022 passed by the
respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to
register the certified copy of the decree dated 28.09.2010 passed in the suit
in O.S.No.2254 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif
Court, Coimbatore 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 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act').
2. The case of the petitioner is that he and 3 others had filed a suit in
O.S.No.2254 of 2005 before the III Additional District Munsif Court,
Coimbatore, for declaration and permanent injunction and the same was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
decreed in favour of the petitioner and 3 others on 28.09.2010. But as
against the said judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.2254 of 2005, the
defendants therein have not yet preferred any appeal. While so, the
petitioner made a request to the respondent to register the certified copy of
the decree passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore
in O.S.No.2254 of 2005 dated 28.09.2010, but, his request was refused by
the respondent vide Refusal Check Slip bearing Refusal
No.RFL/Thondamuthur/29/2022 dated 19.09.2022 on the ground that the
decree has not been submitted for registration within the time of limitation
stipulated under Section 23 of the Act and necessary fee/stamp duty has also
not been paid. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition before this Court for the relief stated supra.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no time limit
is prescribed in the Registration Act with regard to registration of Court
decree. Therefore, citing delay in presenting the Court decree as reason for
not registering the same is not sustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in the case of S.Lingeswaran vs. The Sub Registrar
in W.P.No.9577 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021, wherein, following the earlier
judgments of the Division Bench 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), it was held
that a Court decree is not a compulsorily registrable document and the
option lies with the party and in such circumstances, the law laid down by
this Court clearly states that the limitation prescribed under the Act would
not stand attracted. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in
Lingeswaran's case is usefully 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
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 Registration Act. In such circumstances, the
impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
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 Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent submitted that the petitioner's request was rejected by the
respondent under Section 23 and Section 25 of the Act.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of a Court
decree. The issue involved in the present case is that when the petitioner
presented the Court decree which 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 Lingeswaran's case and the ratio laid therein stands
squarely applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the rejection order
passed by the respondent is wholly in contravention of the order passed in
Lingeswaran's case (supra).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also,
following the decision in the case of S.Lingeswaran vs. The Sub Registrar
in W.P.No.9577 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021 cited supra, this writ petition is
allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The
respondent is directed to entertain the decree in O.S.No.2254 of 2005 dated
28.09.2010 passed by the III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore,
if it is otherwise in order, without referring the delay. No costs.
19.10.2022
mrr
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order
Copy to
The Sub-Registrar,
Thondamuthur Sub-Registrar Office,
Thondamuthur,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
mrr
W.P.No.27984 of 2022
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
