Madras High Court
Thirumani Raja vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.Ii on 1 July, 2024
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P(MD)No.13439 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.13439 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)No.11853 of 2024
Thirumani Raja ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Joint Sub Registrar No.II,
Tuticorin. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
Impugned Refusal check slip in RFL/2 Joint Sub Registrar
Thoothukudi/29/2023 dated 27.12.2023 on the file of respondent and
quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to
register the Judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023 passed in O.S.No.153
of 2021 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Tuticorin.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ragavendran
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P(MD)No.13439 of 2024
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner filed O.S.No.153 of 2021 on the file of II
Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi and obtained exparte money
decree against the first defendant on 30.06.2023. The petitioner wanted
to register the same. The petitioner's request was negatived on the
ground that it is an exparte decree. The respondent has relied on the
circular dated 27.02.2023 issued by the Inspector General of
Registration. Challenging the refusal check slip dated 27.12.2023 issued
by the respondent, this writ petition came to be filed.
3.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the issue raised in the writ petition is no longer res integra. A
learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024 in W.P.No.3185
of 2024 (Vetrivel Vs The Sub Registrar, Sankarapuram Sub Registrar
Office, Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District.) had held as follows:
“5. As per Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, the
respondent can refuse to register the document only when the
decree was presented for registration beyond the stipulated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
period of 4 months. In the present case, the petitioner has got
ex-parte decree from the competent Court on 05.10.2023 and
presented before the respondent for registration within four
months i.e. on 15.12.2023. However, the reason given by the
respondent for not registering the decree is that it was an ex-
parte decree and hence as per the Circular in e/f/vz;/34930-
rp1-2019 ehs; 27/02/2023, issued by the Inspector General of
Registration, Chennai, ex-parte decree cannot be registered.
6. The proviso to Section 23 of the Registration Act,
1908 reads as follows :
23. Time of presenting document.- Subject to
the provisions contained in Sections 24, 25, and
26, no document other than a Will shall be
accepted for registration unless presented for that
purpose to the proper officer within four months
from the date of its execution Provided that a copy
of a decree or order may be presented within four
months from the date on which the decree or order
was made, or, where it is appealable, within four
months from the date on which it becomes final.
7. Even Section17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908,
is also very clear that if any decree or order is passed by a
Court, the Registrar/SubRegistrar can register the same.
8. For better appreciation Section 17(2)(vi) of the
Registration Act, 1908 is extracted hereunder :
'' 17. Documents of which registration is
compulsory :- (1) ............
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section
(1) applies to .........
(vi) any decree or order of a Court [except a decree
or order expressed to be made on a compromise
and comprising immovable property other than that
which is the subject matter of the suit or
proceedings]; or''
9. It is settled proposition of law that no Circular will
prevail over the Act or Rules. If the order/decree holder gives
a valid reason for presenting the decree for registration, the
same has to be considered, unless the said decree was
subsequently set aside or over-ruled or modified. Even
otherwise, if any dispute arises regarding the same, the
aggrieved party can work out their remedy before the civil
Court. The Registrar is not the competent authority to testify
as to whether the ex-parte decree presented before him/her is
a valid and executable one or not. Unless the decree
presented for registration is subsequently set aside or over-
ruled or modified by the competent forum, the said decree is
an executable decree, and it is the duty of the Registrar to
register the document, if the document is otherwise in order
and within the purview of the Registration Act. Therefore, the
reason given by the third respondent for not registering the
ex-parte decree based on the said circular, is against the
provisions of law and hence, the same cannot be accepted.
Circular is only for internal communication and not to by-
pass or over rule or modify the Act. This Court has come
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
across several writ petitions wherein, the Registrars, by
citing the said circular, have refused to register the ex-parte
decree. The specific portion in the Circular e/f/vz;/34930-
rp1-2019 27/02/2023 directing the registering authority not
to register the ex-parte decree, which is against Act or Rule,
was already quashed by this Court in W.P.No.36564 of 2023,
dated 05.01.2024. Further, this Court, time and again
interpreted the proviso that if any under decree or order
passed by this Court is presented for registration and the
same is otherwise in order, the concerned authority has to
register the same. Instead of registering the same, the
respondent herein referred to the circular and refused
registration, which is highly deprecated. Therefore, the
impugned refusal check slip dated 15.12.2023 passed by the
respondent is liable to be quashed.”
This has been followed in a number of orders by me also. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice order dated
27.02.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.4454 of 2024 (Subbaiah Ambalam Vs
The Inspector General of Registration & Others).
4.In this view of the matter, the impugned refusal check slip is
quashed. The petitioner is permitted to re-present the decree. It shall be
registered by the respondent subject to the fulfilment of other usual
formalities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.07.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MGA
To
The Joint Sub Registrar No.II,
Tuticorin.
Copy to
II Additional District Judge, Tuticorin.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
MGA
01.07.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
