Madras High Court
R.Ponnusamy vs The Sub Registrar on 6 September, 2022
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
R.Ponnusamy ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office, Avinashi,
Tiruppur-641654. ...Respondent
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
impugned refusal check slip dated 31.05.2022 Ref
No.RFL/Avinashi/10/2022 issued by the respondent and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondent to register the decree dated 24.04.2019
in O.S.No.162 of 2018 made by the II Additional District Court, Tiruppur,
within such period that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.Balaji Thirumoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
refusal check slip dated 31.05.2022 Ref No.RFL/Avinashi/10/2022 issued
by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondent to register the decree dated 24.04.2019 in O.S.No.162 of 2018
made by the II Additional District Court, Tiruppur, within such period that
may be fixed by this Court.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the
official respondent. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel
appearing for either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the
disputed property. The petitioner obtained a final decree in O.S.No.162 of
2018, on the file of II Additional District Court, Tiruppur on 24.04.2019.
The petitioner decided to register the same and presented before the
respondent for registration on 31.05.2022. However, the same was returned
by stating that there is a delay in registering the document. Challenging the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
same, the present writ petition is filed with the aforesaid prayer.
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
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
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 Advocate appearing for the
respondents submit that the said application was rejected under section 23
of the Registration Act.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
obtained a compromise decree. When the document was presented,
however, 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 respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
register the decree in O.S.No.162 of 2018 dated 24.04.2019 passed by the II
Additional District Court, Tiruppur, on the receipt of the necessary stamp
duty and registration charges and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law. No costs.
06.09.2022
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
psa
To
The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office, Avinashi,
Tiruppur-641654.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
psa
W.P.No.23423 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
