Madras High Court

Amit Chowdhary vs The Sub-Registrar on 7 September, 2022

                                                                                      W.P.No.23968 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 07.09.2022

                                                  CORAM
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                                   W.P.No.23968 of 2022

                     Amit Chowdhary                                             ...Petitioner

                                                             Vs.

                     1.      The Sub-Registrar,
                             Maduranthakam Sub-Registrar Office,
                             Maduranthakam.

                     2.      The Inspector General of Registration,
                             Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
                             Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.
                                                                                  ...Respondents


                     Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue

                     a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the

                     order/Check Slip in RFL/Maduranthakam/3/2022 dated 27.06.2022, issued

                     by the 1st respondent and quash the same and directing the 1st respondent to

                     register the document i.e., Sale Certificate dated 08.02.2021, in Book I,

                     without insisting for stamp duty, as contemplated under Section 89(2) of the

                     Registration Act and to return the same to the petitioner.


                     1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                         W.P.No.23968 of 2022




                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.Ralph V. Manohar

                                        For Respondents   : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
                                                      Special Government Pleader

                                                              ORDER

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

Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order/Check Slip in

RFL/Maduranthakam/3/2022 dated 27.06.2022, issued by the 1st respondent

and quash the same and directing the 1st respondent to file the document i.e.,

Sale Certificate dated 08.02021, in Book I, without insisting for stamp duty,

as contemplated under Section 89(2) of the Registration Act and to return

the same to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the

subject property in a bank auction and a certificate of sale was issued to the

petitioner by Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II on 09.02.2021

and when the petitioner presented the same before the 1st respondent for

registration on 27.06.2022, however, the first respondent refused to register

the same, vide Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/ Maduranthakam/3/ 2022 dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 of 2022

27.06.2022 on the ground that the sale certificate has been presented for

registration after 4 months and further stated that in case the sale certificate

has to be accepted for filing in office records, a sum of equal to 5 times the

registration has to be paid as penalty for filing in office records. 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 sale

certificate. 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 submit that the order

passed by the Debt recovery Officer in the auction proceedings and he

relied 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)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 of 2022

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 of 2022

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 sustainable and it is liable to be set

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23968 of 2022

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 on the ground

that there was inordinate delay in registering the sale certificate.

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

Certificate 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).

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order