Madras High Court
V.Muthusamy @ Abdul Majid @ Jahir ... vs The Sub-Registrar on 6 September, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 06.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P(MD)No.15456 of 2022
V.Muthusamy @ Abdul Majid @ Jahir Hussain ..Petitioner
Vs
The Sub-Registrar,
Alangulam Registrar Office,
Alangulam, Tenkasi District. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the
impugned order passed by the respondent in RFL/Alangulam/1/2022,
dated 12.1.2022 and further to direct the respondent to register the
judgment and decree dated 15.2.2021 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2013 on
the file of Principal Sub-Court, Tenkasi presented by the Writ Petitioner.
For Petitioner :Mr.T.Selvan
For Respondent :Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Govt.Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned
order passed by the respondent in RFL/Alangulam/1/2022, dated
12.1.2022 and further to direct the respondent to register the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and decree dated 15.2.2021 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2013 on the file of
Principal Sub-Court, Tenkasi presented by the Writ Petitioner.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed before this Court.
3.The case of the Petitioner is that his father had executed a
settlement deed in respect of the family property in favour of the
Petitioner on 4.12.2000 in Document No.3567 of 2006 and thereafter, the
Petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
Thereafter, his sisters in order to grab the said properties, created false
documents and filed a suit in O.S.No.170 of 2008, on the file of Principal
District Munsif Court, Tenkasi for declaration and injunction against the
Petitioner and the same was allowed on 18.09.2013. Aggrieved by the
same, the Petitioner had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.38 of 2013, on the
file of Principal Sub-Court, Tenkasi and the same was allowed in his favour
on 15.2.2021. Against the said judgment no appeal has been preferred by
his sisters and hence, the Petitioner had plresented the judgment and
decree made in A.S.No.38 of 2013 for registration before the respondent
and the same was refused to be registered stating that the said document
was not presented for registration in time. But there is no limitation or
bar imposed under the Registration Act to to present the Court judgment
and decree for registration within a specified time. Hence the order
passed by the registering authority refusing to register the document is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
unsustainable. Hence the Petitioner has come forward with the present
Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
4.According to the Petitioner, there is no limitation for presenting
the Court decree for registration, as registration of the Court decree is
only optional and not mandatory.
5.The Petitioner further submits that the Courts have repeatedly
held that no registering authrity shall refuse to register any Court decree
on the ground of limitation.
6.In support of his contention,the learned counsel relied upon a
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Sarvothaman .vs.
The Sub Registrar, Oulgaret, Pondicherry reported in 2019 (3) MLJ
517 and would submit that this Court has categorically held that the
limitation prescribed in Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 cannot
apply to a Court decree and also held that Proviso to Section 23 of the
Registration Act, 1908 does not apply insofar as limitation is concerned for
registration of the Court decree, since it is not a compulsoryily registrable
document and this Court further held that the limitation period prescribed
in Proviso to Section 23 of the Act can only be treated as directory and
therefore the mandatory requirement of registration of document before 4
months as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act cannot be put
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
against any party, who wants to register the decree or order.
7.This Court in a case of similar nature in W.P.No.21546 of 2021,
dated 6.10.2021(A.K.C.Rajenderan .vs. The District
Registrar(Admn), Office of the Registrar, Nagapattinam and three
others) allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order
with a further direction to register the documents as sought for and the
operative portion of the said order reads as under:
''In view of the above and considering the
submissions made by the Petitioner, this Court is inclined
to set aside the Refusal Check Slip, dated 7.9.2021 issued
by the second respondent and the Writ Petition is allowed
by directing the respondents to register the decree dated
4.12.2014 passed in I.A.No.88 of 2013 in O.S.No.25 of
2012 passedby the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur in
accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.''
8.Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside
the impugned order passed by the respondent in RFL/Alangulam/1/2022,
dated 12.1.2022 with a further direction to the respondent to register
the judgment and decree, dated 15.2.2021 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Tenkasi presented by the Writ
Petitioner. No costs.
06.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Alangulam Registrar Office,
Alangulam, Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J
vsn
ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.15456 of 2022
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
