Madras High Court

Chennamma @ Chinnamma vs The Sub Registrar on 19 October, 2022

                                                                                         W.P.No.27873 of 2022

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED : 19.10.2022

                                                     CORAM
                                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                         W.P.No.27873 of 2022

                     Chennamma @ Chinnamma                                                ...Petitioner

                                                                 Vs.

                     The Sub Registrar,
                     Hosur. Krishnagiri District.                   ...Respondent
                     Prayer:      Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to
                     the refusal check slip in Refusal No.RFL/Hosur/46/2022 dated 01.10.2022
                     by the respondent in respect of the registration of the decree dated
                     20.07.2009 passed in O.S.No.368 of 2006 by the Hon'ble District Munsif /
                     Sub Court, Hosur and quash the same and consequently direct the
                     respondent to register the decree dated 20.07.2009 passed in O.S.No.368 of
                     2006 by the Hon'ble District Munsif/Sub-Court, Hosur and pass orders.

                                        For Petitioner       : Mr.M. Mohamed Riyaz

                                        For Respondents   : Mr. C. Kathiravan
                                                      Special Government Pleader
                                                           ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the refusal check slip in

Refusal No.RFL/Hosur/46/2022 dated 01.10.2022 by the respondent in

respect of the registration of the decree dated 20.07.2009 passed in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27873 of 2022

O.S.No.368 of 2006 by the Hon'ble District Munsif / Sub Court, Hosur and

quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the decree

dated 20.07.2009 passed in O.S.No.368 of 2006 by the Hon'ble District

Munsif/Sub-Court, Hosur.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner and her sister filed a

suit in O.S.No.368 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif Sub-Court, Hosur

for partitioning of the property in S.No.479 to an extent of 1.75.0 Hectare

and for the property comprised in S.No.480 to an extent of 3.02.0 Hectare

situated at Madivalam Village, Berigai Taras, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri. and

the said suit was decreed on 20.07.2009. Thereby, the petitioner presented

the application before the respondent for registering the said decree on

30.09.2022, however, the respondent refused to register the same, vide

Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/ Uthangarai/ 46/ 2022 dated 01.10.2022 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27873 of 2022

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27873 of 2022

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:

"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.27873 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.”

5. 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.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of a Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27873 of 2022

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).