R.Kalaichezhian vs The District Registrar
2023 Latest Caselaw 7421 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7421 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 July, 2023

Madras High Court

R.Kalaichezhian vs The District Registrar on 3 July, 2023

                                                                                  WP No.12597 of 2023

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 03-07-2023

                                                       CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                  WP No.12597 of 2023



                     R.Kalaichezhian                                    ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.


                     1.The District Registrar,
                       Tiruvannamalai District.

                     2.The Joint Sub Registrar-II,
                       Tiruvannamalai,
                       Tiruvannamalai District.                         ... Respondents


                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to
                     register the certified copy of the decree and judgment, dated 25.10.2021,
                     passed in O.S.No.38 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court of Arani, on
                     payment of registration charges without insisting for payment of stamp
                     duties and without insisting on the period of limitation under Section 23 of
                     the Registration Act, 1908.



                     Page 1 of 8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   WP No.12597 of 2023



                                   For Petitioner            : Ms.G.Shakthipriya

                                   For Respondents           : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi,
                                                               Government Advocate.

                                                      ORDER

The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the second

respondent to register the certified copy of the decree and judgment, dated

25.10.2021, passed in O.S.No.38 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court of

Arani, on payment of registration charges without insisting for payment of

stamp duties and without insisting on the period of limitation under Section

23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. The petitioner states that he presented certified copy of the

judgment and decree passed in OS No.38 of 2011 for registration. The

respondents have refused to register the same on th ground that the

petitioner should pay the stamp duty for registering the judgment and

decree.

3. There is no stamp duty to be paid in the event of presentation

of certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12597 of 2023

However, the petitioner has to pay the registration fee of 1% as

contemplated.

4. The limitation under Section 23 of the Registration Act,

1908, cannot be an impediment for registering the judgment and decree.

5. The issue in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Sarvothaman vs. Sub

Registrar [2019 (2) CWC 314]. The relevant portions of the judgment,

cited supra, are extracted hereunder:-

“12. We have carefully considered the contentions made on either side.

13. As pointed out by us earlier, we need to first address the legal issue, which arises for consideration as to whether at all the law of limitation as prescribed under Section 23 of the Act would apply to a court decree.

14. This question is no longer res integra and this Court has consistently held that the law of limitation will not apply when a court decree is presented for registration. Earliest of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12597 of 2023

decisions, which has been followed consistently by a Division Bench of this Court is in the case of A.K. Gnanasankar Vs Joint~II Sub~Registrar, Cuddalore~2 [reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68]. In the said decision, this Court held that the limitation prescribed for presenting a document does not apply to a decree, as it is a permanent record of the court and to register the same, no limitation is prescribed.

15. This decision was followed by one of us (TSSJ) in W.P.No.9352 of 2015 dated 31.3.2015 [B.Vijayan Vs. District Registrar & another]. Subsequently, a similar view had been taken by this Court in W.P.No.8247 of 2016 dated 07.3.2016 [G.Mudiyarasan & another Vs. Inspector General of Registration], which once again relied upon the decision in the case of A.K.Gnanasankar. Further, in the case of Arun Kumar Vs. Inspector General of Registration [W.P.No.16569 of 2016 dated 06.6.2016], this Court directed registration of a judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem by condoning the delay on an application filed by the person presenting the document and in that decision, this Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12597 of 2023

referred to the decision in the case of Rasammal Vs. Pauline Edwin & others [reported in 2011 (2) MLJ 57] wherein the Court considered the scope of Section 25 of the Act.?

25. After the matter attained finality, the appellant applied for a certified copy of the decree in O.S. No. 6 of 1968 dated 29.4.1970 and it was furnished to the appellant on 08.3.2018 as could be seen from the date seal affixed by the Central Copyist Establishment of the District Court, Puducherry. The appellant presented the decree for registration before the respondent on 04.7.2018 as noted in the order impugned in the writ petition. Thus, presentation of the decree from the date of obtaining certified copy on 08.3.2018 is well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 23 of the Act even assuming that the said provision would apply to the case on hand.”

6. As far as the stamp duty is concerned, the Registration

charges alone are to be collected and there is no stamp duty to be paid for

registering the certified copy of the judgment and decree.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.12597 of 2023

7. This being the principles to be followed, the demand of

stamp duty from the petitioner is not in consonance with the provisions of

the Registration Act, 1908. Thus the petitioner is liable to pay only the

registration charges i.e., 1% of the suit value.

8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to proceed with

the registration of the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in

OS No.38 of 2011 presented by the petitioner by collecting the registration

charges alone, as expeditiously as possible.