Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Inspector General Of ... on 9 September, 2022
WP.No.23417 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
WP.No.23417 of 2013
Rajeshwari [Deceased]
Mr.Rajesh
[impleaded as per the Order in M.P.No.
1 of 2015 in W.P.No.23417of 2013,
dated 09.09.2022 by NSKJ] ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Madurantakkam Sub Registrar Office,
Madurantakkam.
2. Suguna
[R3 impleaded as per Order dated 08.10.2013
by KKSJ in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.
23417 of 2019] ... Respondents
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
the second respondent in his impugned Order dated 19.07.2013 in Ref.
No.A.thi.Mu returning the Court Decree dated 30.12.2004 passed in
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
O.S.No.363 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif,
Madurantakkam presented by the petitioner for registration and to quash
the same and direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to
present the above Court decree dated 30.12.2014 and to register the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Nagu Sah
for Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, Spl. G.P. - R1 & R2
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned Order dated
19.07.2013 returning the Court Decree dated 30.12.2004 passed in
O.S.No.363 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif,
Madurantakkam presented by the petitioner for registration and to direct
the second respondent to register the same.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the exparte decree was originally obtained on 30.12.2004 in
O.S.No.363 of 2004 and the same was sought to be set aside in I.A.No.405
of 2007 in O.S.No.363 of 2004 which was dismissed on 19.09.2007
against which C.M.A.No.3 of 2008 has been filed and the same was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
dismissed on 17.09.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the decree
before the second respondent for registration. However, the second
respondent returned the decree on the ground that the same has not been
filed within 120 days and it has been presented for registration beyond the
limitation period.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
as far as the decree is concerned, there is no limitation prescribed under
Section 23 of the Registration Act to register a decree. This aspect has
been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in 2007 [2] TCJ 68 and
following the same the Single Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.8091, 8093
& 9446 of 2020 has directed the Registration Department to register the
decree.
4. Whereas, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents would submit that Section 23 of the Registration Act
specifically provides time limit of four months for registration of a decree.
Hence, sought for dismissal of this Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
5. In this regard it is relevant to note the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court, wherein the Division Bench of this Court taking note
of various other judgments, in W.A.[MD] No.336 of 2019, in para 21 has
held 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.”
6. Considering the above judgment, the Single Bench of this Court in
a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.[MD] Nos.8091, 8093 & 9446 of 2020 has
held as follows :
“17. It is clear from the above that the limitation prescribed
under the Act will not stand attracted insofar as an order or
decree passed by a competent court is concerned. This judgment
has also been subsequently followed in the latest judgment by a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.902 of 2021, dated 26.04.2021.
Therefore, this ratio has been consistently followed till date.
18.This court does not find any contradiction in the subsequent
judgment rendered in W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2019 with the earlier
view of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.2395 of 2003.
19.It will be relevant to take note of the Judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court and also the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court for the preposition that where a later Bench considers
the decision of an earlier Bench and passes a judgment, the later
decision will bind a single Judge.
a) In the case of P.Murugan Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal reported in 2017 SCC online Madras 4187. The relevant
portions are extracted hereunder.
“52.Yet another reason, as to why, we are not inclined to
accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that when there are two decisions, on the point of law, the
judgment rendered at a later point of time, proximate and which
has considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, will
prevail over the former. Reference can be made to few decisions,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
(i) In D.V. Lakshmana Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in
2001 (4) KAR.L.J. 185, the Karantaka High Court has held thus:
“It is now well-settled that if there are two conflicting
judgments of the Supreme Court, of Benches with equal number
of Judges, then the latter will prevail over the earlier. But where
the earlier judgment is of a larger Bench and the latter judgment
is of a smaller Bench, then the decision of the larger Bench will
be binding. When there is divergence between decisions of two
co-ordinate Benches of the Supreme Court, the latter decision
should prevail. The exception arises where the first decision
specifically considers a particular question and lays down the
principles relating to the question and the subsequent decision,
without noticing the earlier decision or the principles laid down
therein, and without examining the question, renders an
assumptive decision. In such a situation, the earlier decision
which considered the question and lays down the principle will
apply.”
(ii) A Full Bench of this Court in R. Rama Subbarayalu
Reddiar v. Rengammal (AIR 1962 Madras 45) has examined the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
question with regard to High Court decisions. At Paragraph 4 of
the judgment, this Court held that,
“4. Before we deal with the question, involved in the appeal,
it is necessary to examine the propriety of the procedure adopted
by the learned District Judge, The normal rule as to the
precedents is that Subordinate Courts are bound in the absence of
any decision of the Supreme Court to follow the decision of the
High Court to which they are subordinate. Where, however, there
is a conflict between two decisions of the High Court, the rule to
be adopted is as follows: where the conflict is between the
judgment of a Single Judge and a Bench or between a Bench and
a Larger Bench, the decision of the Bench or Larger Bench as the
case may be, will have to be followed. But where the conflict is
between two decisions both pronounced by a Bench consisting of
the same number of Judges and the subordinate Court after a
careful examination of the decision came to the conclusion that
both of them directly apply to the case before it, it will then be at
liberty to follow that decision which seems to it more correct,
whether such decision be the later or the earlier one.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
(iii) A Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation v. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow (AIR 1977 Allahabad 1), held that,
“12. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court's decision in
Mysore State Transport Corporation is later in time. Even if there
is some conflict in the two Supreme Court decisions, we have to
follow the law as declared in the later case of Mysore State
Transport Corporation.” (iv) In Vasant Tatoba Hargude v.
Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari (AIR 1980 Bom. 341), it is held that in
case of conflict between earlier and later decisions of Supreme
Court, each consisting of equal number of Judges, later decision
prevails.
A Full Bench of Karnataka High Court (Five Judge Bench)
in Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Company
Limited (AIR 1980 Karnataka 92), at Paragraph 5, held that-
“If two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law
can not be reconciled and one of them is by a Larger Bench while
the other is by a Smaller Bench, it is earlier or later in point of
time, should be followed by High Courts and other Courts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
However, if both such Benches of the Supreme Court consist of
equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be
followed by High Courts and other Court.”
b) In the case of B.Eswaraiah Vs. Labour Court I reported in
2014 SCC Online AP 386. The relevant portions are extracted
hereunder.
“8. Having considered the matter with broader dimensions,
we find that various High Courts have given different opinion on
the question involved. Some hold that in case of conflict between
two judgments on a point of law, later decision should be
followed; while others say that the Court should follow the
decision which is correct and accurate whether it is earlier or
later. There are High Courts which hold that decision of earlier
Bench is binding because of the theory of binding precedent and
Article 141 of the Constitution of India. There are also decisions
which hold that single Judge differing from another single Judge
decision should refer the case to Larger Bench, otherwise he is
bound by it. Decisions which are rendered without considering
the decisions expressing contrary view have no value as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
precedent. But in our considered opinion, the position may be
stated thus with regard to the High Court, a single Bench is
bound by the decision of another single Bench. In case, he does
not agree with the view of the other single Bench, he should refer
the matter to the Larger Bench. Similarly, Division Bench is
bound by the judgment of earlier Division Bench. In case, it does
not agree with the view of the earlier Division Bench, it should
refer the matter to Larger Bench. In case of conflict between
judgments of two Division Benches of equal strength, the
decision of earlier Division Bench shall be followed except when
it is explained by the latter Division Bench in which case the
decision of latter Division Bench shall be binding. The decision
of Larger Bench is binding on smaller Benches. In case of
conflict between two decisions of the Apex Court, Benches
comprising of equal number of Judges, decision of earlier Bench
is binding unless explained by the latter Bench of equal strength,
in which case the later decision is binding. Decision of a Larger
Bench is binding on smaller Benches. Therefore, the decision of
earlier Division Bench, unless distinguished by latter Division
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
Bench, is binding on the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts.
Similarly, in presence of Division Bench decisions and Larger
Bench decisions, the decisions of Larger Bench are binding on
the High Courts and the subordinate Courts. No decision of Apex
Court has been brought to our notice which holds that in case of
conflict between the two decisions by equal number of Judges,
the later decision is binding in all circumstances, or the High
Courts and subordinate Courts can follow any decision which is
found correct and accurate to the case under consideration. High
Courts and Subordinate Courts should lack competence to
interpret decisions of Apex Court since that would not only
defeat what is envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution of
India but also militate hierarchical supremacy of Courts. The
common thread which runs through various decisions of Apex
Court seems to be that great value has to be attached to precedent
which has taken the shape of rule being followed by it for the
purpose of consistency and exactness in decisions of Court,
unless the Court can clearly distinguish the decision put up as a
precedent or is per incuriam, having been rendered without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
noticing some earlier precedents with which the Court agrees.
Full Bench decision in Balveer Singhs case (AIR 2001 Madh Pra
268) (supra) which holds that if there is conflict of views between
the two co-equal Benches of the Apex Court, the High Court has
to follow the judgment which appears to it to state the law more
elaborately and more accurately and in conformity with the
scheme of the Act, in our considered opinion, for reasons
recorded in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, does not
lay down the correct law as to application of precedent and is,
therefore, over ruled on this point. (emphasis added) In my
considered opinion, the position would be this: When the
subsequent co-equal bench renders the judgment in ignorance of
the earlier pronouncement of co-equal bench, the judgement of
the previous bench will have binding effect. On the other hand, if
the latter bench refers to the earlier one and distinguishes it, to
that extent of distinction, the latter one binds. A learned Division
Bench of this Court in S.K. Mahaboob Ali, Ex-CRPF Constable,
Nandyal v. Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police
Force, New Delhi, has held.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
7. Since the matter has been extensively dealt by the Single Bench of
this Court following decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the
above dictum has to be followed.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the second
respondent is directed to register the certified copy of the decree dated
30.12.2004 presented by the petitioner and the registration fee shall be
levied only on the total value of the suit. It is also made clear that no
stamp duty is leviable while registering any Order of decree. No costs.
09.09.2022
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
vrc
To,
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Madurantakkam Sub Registrar Office,
Madurantakkam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.23417 of 2013
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
WP.No.23417 of 2013
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
