Madras High Court
Balasubramani vs The Sub Registrar on 1 June, 2023
W.P.No.14159 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.14159 of 2023
Balasubramani ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Chennimalai SRO,
Erode District. ...Respondent
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order made in check slip dated
29.11.2022 made in RFL/Chennimalai/49/2022 passed by the respondent
and for consequent direction to register the decree dated 29.11.2010 in
O.S.No.67 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabakar
For Respondent : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Govt. Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P.No.14159 of 2023
ORDER
The refusal check slip, issued by the Sub-Registrar/respondent on the
ground of limitation, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The writ petitioner presented the final decree proceedings for
registration under the Registration Act and the respondent declined to
register the same on the ground that the document was not presented
within the time limit prescribed under Act under Section 23 of the Act.
3.The issue raised in the present writ petition is no more res integra
since the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of
S.Sarvothaman Vs. Sub Registrar, Pondicherry, held that :
“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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14159 of 2023
4.Following the said judgment of the Division Bench, this Court also
passed an order in the case of Durainarayanan Vs. The Inspector General
of Registration in W.P.No.27296 of 2016 dated 27.09.2021 and the
relevant portion of the order is extracted here under:
5. The issue in this regard has been settled by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of
S.Sarvotham Vs. Sub Registrar, reported in 2019 (2)
CWC 314. The relevant portions 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14159 of 2023
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 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."
6. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench
was followed in W.P.No.9944 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the relief on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14159 of 2023
that even in cases were such decree passed by the
competent civil Court beyond the period prescribed under
Section 23 of the Limitation Act, such document is to be
registered by the Sub Registrar concerned. Therefore, the
refusal check slip issued by the 2nd respondent cannot be
sustained and stands quashed. Accordingly the petitioner
is at liberty to submit a fresh application along with the
document to the 2nd respondent and on receipt of such
application from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is
directed to register the same, if the application is
otherwise in order, without causing any further delay.
5.In view of the fact that the petitioner presented the final decree
proceedings for registration in the present case, the writ petition is to be
considered. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the
respondent on 29.11.2022 is quashed and the respondent is directed to
proceed with the registration if the papers are otherwise in order and by
following the procedures as contemplated under the Act and the Rules.
6.Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
(sha) 01.06.2023
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14159 of 2023
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14159 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J.,
(sha)
To
The Sub Registrar,
Chennimalai SRO,
Erode District.
W.P.No.14159 of 2023
01.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
