Madras High Court
M.Valliammal vs The Sub Registrar on 8 September, 2022
W.P.No.24006 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.24006 of 2022
M.Valliammal ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Kinathukadavu, Coimbatore District.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
Collector Office Complex, Coimbatore. ...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records/order of the 1st
respondent passed dated 04.05.2022 in letter
No.RLF/Kinathukadavu/37/2022, quash the same, consequently directing the
1st respondent to register the Decree passed in O.S.No.514 of 2008, dated
29.04.2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore which was lodged for registration vide TP/118985594/202 on
payment of applicable stamp duty.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.R.Sankara Lingam
For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24006 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records/order of the 1st respondent
passed dated 04.05.2022 in letter No.RLF/Kinathukadavu/37/2022, quash the
same, consequently directing the 1st respondent to register the Decree passed
in O.S.No.514 of 2008, dated 29.04.2017 on the file of the IV Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore which was lodged for registration
vide TP/118985594/202 on payment of applicable stamp duty.
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.514 of
2008, dated 29.04.2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore. The petitioner decided to register the same and presented
before the respondent for registration on 04.05.2022. However, the same was
returned by stating that there is a delay in registering the document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24006 of 2022
Challenging the 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.24006 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 judgment reads as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24006 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24006 of 2022
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 1st respondent is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to
register the decree in O.S.No.514 of 2008, dated 29.04.2017 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24006 of 2022
IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, on the receipt of the
necessary stamp duty and registration charges and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. No costs.
08.09.2022
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
Index : Yes/ No
psa
To
1.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Kinathukadavu, Coimbatore District.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
Collector Office Complex, Coimbatore.
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
psa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24006 of 2022
W.P.No.24006 of 2022
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
