Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Maharasi vs The Sub Registrar
2024 Latest Caselaw 8080 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8080 Mad
Judgement Date : 16 May, 2024

Madras High Court

Maharasi vs The Sub Registrar on 16 May, 2024

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   Reserved on : 20.12.2023

                                              Pronounced on : 16.05.2024

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                               W.P(MD)No.28611 of 2023


                Maharasi                                                              .... Petitioner


                                                            Vs.


                The Sub Registrar,
                Radhapuram,
                Tirunelveli.                                                          ... Respondent

                Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
                relating to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/Radhapuram/85/2023 dated
                10.11.2023 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal and
                consequently direct him to register the Certified Copy of the Decree dated
                06.02.2016 made in A.S.No.57 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Court, Valliyoor.


                                  For Petitioner       : Mr.V.S.Kishore Kumar

                                  For Respondent       : Mr.K.Balasubramani
                                                         Special Government Pleader



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/6
                                                        ORDER


                          Heard both sides.



                          2.One Rathinamony filed O.S.No.221 of 2004 on the file of Principal

                District Munsif Court, Valliyoor against the petitioner's husband and others for

                the relief of declaration and injunction. The suit involved the validity of the

                sale deed dated 31.08.2004. The Court held that there is no oral partition and

                that the sale deed was not valid and dismissed the suit on 15.07.2010.

                Rathinamony filed A.S.No.57 of 2010 on the file of Sub Court, Valliyoor.

                During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner's husband passed away and

                the petitioner was added as the fourth respondent. Appeal was dismissed on

                06.02.2016. It has become final. The petitioner subsequently presented the

                copy of the judgment and decree made in the first appeal. The registering

                authority refused to register the same. Instead the impugned refusal check slip

                was issued. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.



                          3.The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. A learned

                Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.06.2023 in W.P(MD)No.14723 of 2023

                (S.Elangovan Vs The District Registrar, Karur District, Karur & Another) had


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                2/6
                held that a registering authority cannot sit over the judicial order or decree and

                that it is not open to him to undertake the verification exercise in respect of the

                rights of the parties. Another learned Judge vide order dated 05.01.2024 in

                W.P.No.36564 of 2023 (P.Vasantha Kumari vs The Joint Sub Registrar-1,

                Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris) had held as follows:

                                  “4. The proviso Section 23 of the Registration Act only
                            says about the period for presenting documents for registration
                            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.
                                  5. In this case, a perusal of the refusal check slip does not
                            show anything that the decree was presented for registration
                            beyond the stipulated period of 4 months and therefore, the same
                            was refused to be registered whereas, the reason given by the
                            respondent for not registering the decree is that since it was an
                            ex-parte decree, as per the circular e/f/vz;/34930-rp1-2019 ehs
                            27/02/2023, issued by the Inspector General of Registration,
                            Chennai, exparte decree cannot be registered.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                3/6
                                  6. It is settled proposition of law that no circular will
                            prevail over the Act or Rules. Therefore, the reason given by the
                            respondent for not registering the ex-parte decree based on the
                            said circular is against the provisions of law. Circular is only for
                            internal communication and not to bypass or over rule or modify
                            the Act. Therefore, though it is not challenged, since this Court
                            has come 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 ehs 27/02/2023 directing the registering authority not
                            to register the ex-parte decree, which is against Act or Rule, is
                            hereby quashed.
                                  7.Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has not presented
                            the said exparte decree within the stipulated period of 4 months
                            from the date of exparte decree. However, the proviso Section 23
                            of the Registration Act is not mandatory. If the decree/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 forum.
                            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, it is the duty of the Registrar to register

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                4/6
                            the document if the document is otherwise in order and within the
                            purview of the Registration Act.”

                Respectfully applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the

                impugned refusal check slip is quashed.



                          4.The petitioner is permitted to re-present the certified copy of the

                judgment and decree. It shall be registered by the respondent and appropriate

                entries shall be made in the encumbrance register. The petitioner of course has

                to fulfill the other usual formalities, if any.



                          5.This writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to

                costs.



                                                                                    16.05.2024

                Index             : Yes / No
                Internet          : Yes / No
                NCC               : Yes / No
                MGA

                To

                The Sub Registrar,
                Radhapuram,
                Tirunelveli.



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                5/6
                                                                    G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

MGA

Copy to

1.The Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor.

2.The Sub Court, Valliyoor.

16.05.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter