Madras High Court
Rajadurai vs The Inspector General Of Registration 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.28113 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.24206 & 24794 of 2023
Rajadurai .... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 28.
2.The District Registrar,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Kadayanallur Sub Registrar Office,
Tenkasi. ... Respondents
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
pertaining to the impugned check slip issued by the 3rd respondent dated
10.03.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
respondent to register the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli in O.S.No. 33 of 1964 dated 27.10.1966.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja
For Respondents : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.S.RA.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The writ petitioner figured as the tenth respondent in O.S.No.33 of
1964 on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli. It was a suit for partition. The suit
was compromised. I.A.No.309 of 1966 was filed and on 27.10.1966,
compromise decree was passed. As per the compromise, the petitioner was
allotted third schedule properties and given common enjoyment of sixth
schedule properties. On 10.03.2023, the petitioner presented the certified copy
of the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.33 of 1964. The registering
authority declined to register the same and issued the impugned refusal check
slip dated 10.03.2023. The third respondent has relied on the circular bearing
Na.Ka.No.34930/C1/2019 dated 27.02.2023 issued by the first respondent in
this regard. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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 third 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.05.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 28.
2.The District Registrar,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Kadayanallur Sub Registrar Office,
Tenkasi.
Copy to
The Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.24206 & 24794 of 2023
16.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
