Madras High Court
A.Sheir Mohammed vs The District Registrar on 28 August, 2025
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 20.08.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
WP(MD)No.22562 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.17676 of 2025
A.Sheir Mohammed,
S/o.Late Abdul Aziz,
No.7, Bangalow Pettai,
Begaampur,
Dindigul – 624 002. ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Registrar,
District Registrar's Office,
Collector Office Campus,
Thadikombu Road,
Dindigul – 624 004.
2.The No.2 Joint Sub Registrar,
Joint Sub Registrar's Office,
Dindigul. ...Respondents
Prayer:- This Writ Petition has been filed, under the Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus, to call
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip issued by the 2 nd
Respondent in RFL/No.2 Joint Sub Registrar, Dindigul in 51/2025 and
quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to register the
Sale Certificate dated 13.02.2024 issued by the Hon'ble Additional Sub
Judge, Dindigul on payment of Stamp duty as per G.O.(Ms)No.100
Commercial Taxes and Registration (J2) Department dated 16.07.2025,
within the time limit stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sachi Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed, under the Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus, to call
for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip issued by the 2 nd
Respondent in RFL/No.2 Joint Sub Registrar, Dindigul in 51/2025 and
quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to register the
Sale Certificate dated 13.02.2024 issued by the Additional Sub Judge,
Dindigul on payment of Stamp duty as per G.O.(Ms)No.100 Commercial
Taxes and Registration (J2) Department dated 16.07.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
2. The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Writ Petition
and necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-
(a) The property located in Dindigul Taluk, Thottanuthu Village,
Survey Nos. 628/8 and 628/3, which was converted into several
house plots under the layout name "K.A. Vasimalai Nagar, Angu
Vilas Kudiyiruppu" and approved vide Approval No. R.Dis.No.
10465/1998, includes the southern portion of Plot No. 6, referred to
as Plot No. 6-Part. This portion was brought to auction in Execution
Petition No.128/2014 in O.S.No.392/2013 on 29.11.2023. The
Petitioner successfully acquired the property at the auction for a sum
of Rs. 7,53,000/-. The auction was confirmed by the concerned Civil
Court on 13.02.2024, and thereafter a Sale Certificate was issued by
the Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul.
(b) Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for the delivery of
the property in E.A. No. 9/2024, which was granted by the Sub
Court on 06.03.2025, and delivery was completed on 17.03.2025.
Following this, the original Sale Certificate was returned to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
petitioner by the concerned Civil Court. On 08.04.2025, the
petitioner presented the Sale Certificate for registration before the
2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent returned the
document after 21 days, on 29.04.2025, stating that it was presented
for registration belatedly, and issued a Check Slip. The Check Slip,
bearing RFL/No. 2 Joint Sub-Registrar, Dindigul in 51/2025, was
served to the petitioner on 02.05.2025. Aggrieved over the same,
the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Heard Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader,
for the Respondents.
4. Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits
that no time limit is prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908, or the
relevant Rules for the registration of court orders, decrees, or
communications. Despite this, the 2nd Respondent has unjustifiably refused
to register the document and has issued a Refusal Check Slip. Learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
counsel further submits that, in respect of registration of Court orders,
decrees, and proceedings, the Registration Act and Rules do not stipulate
any period of limitation. Moreover, the Government, by way of G.O.(Ms)
No.100, Commercial Taxes and Registration (J2) Department, dated
16.07.2025, has prescribed the stamp duty payable on sale certificates
issued by courts and competent authorities. However, the 2nd Respondent,
without issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, has
rejected the registration on the ground of delay. Such action on the part of
the 2nd Respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without any legal basis.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on various
judgments of this Hon'ble Court and contended that the issue involved in
the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra. He further submitted that
similar Refusal Check Slips issued by the registering authorities have been
challenged before this Hon'ble Court on several occasions, and this
Hon'ble Court has consistently held that there is no time limit prescribed
under the Registration Act, 1908, for the registration of court orders and
sale certificates issued by a Court of law. One such decision is in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
W.P. Nos. 4591 of 2020 and batch cases, wherein the Hon'ble Court, by
order dated 29.07.2021, [in the case of Mani @ Devarasu vs. The District
Registrar], reiterated the above legal position. The relevant portion of the
said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“24. As stated supra, this court has been taking
the consistent view that the limitation prescribed under
Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 would not
stand attracted for presenting a decree or order of a
civil court for registration and there is no reason to
deviate from that view. This court, therefore, is also of
the considered view that there is no necessity to refer
the issue to a larger bench and the law has been well
settled by the Division Benches of this Court without
any contradictions.”
As held by this Hon'ble Court, the time limit prescribed under Section
23 of the Registration Act, 1908, is not applicable to the presentation of a
decree or order of a Civil Court for registration. Therefore, the Refusal
Check Slip issued by the 2nd Respondent is per se illegal and liable to be
quashed. Hence, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to allow the present Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
6. Mr.D.Sadiq Raja learned Additional Government Pleader for the
Respondents submits that the Sale Certificate presented for registration
was rejected under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.
7. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the
contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also
perused the entire materials available on record.
8. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that when the Sale
Certificate was presented for registration before the 2nd respondent, the
same was refused on the ground that it has been filed beyond the period of
limitation provided under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.
9. For the sake of convenience, Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration
Act, 1908, are extracted hereunder:-
“23.Time for presenting documents.- Subject to the
provisions contained in Sections 24, 25 and 26, no
document other than a will shall be accepted for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper
office 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 day on which the
decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable,
within four months from the day on which it becomes final.
....
25.Provision where delay in presentation is
unavoidable.-
(1)If, owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident,
any document executed, or copy of a decree or order made,
in India is not presented for registration till after the
expiration of the time hereinbefore prescribed in that
behalf, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in
presentation does not exceed four months, may direct that,
on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of
the proper registration fee, such document shall be
accepted for registration.
(2)Any application for such direction may be lodged with a
Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the
Registrar to whom he is subordinate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
Although Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 prescribes a
limitation period of four months for the presentation of a court decree for
registration, a consistent line of judicial pronouncements has clarified that
this provision does not apply with rigidity to court decrees. The Hon’ble
Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that a decree passed by a
competent court can be presented for registration even beyond the
stipulated period of limitation.
10. In the case of S.Sarvothaman Vs.Sub Registrar in W.A.No.336
of 2019 dated 07.02.2019, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court
was pleased to observe as under:-
“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 ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
26. As pointed out by us earlier, the time limit
stipulated under Section 23 of the Act will have no
application to a court decree. For the above reasons,
we are of the considered view that the reasons assigned
by the respondent for refusing to register the decree
dated 29.4.1970 vide order dated 05.7.2018 is
unsustainable in law.
27. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed, the order
dated 23.1.2019 passed in W.P.No.18593 of 2018 is set
aside, W.P.No.18593 of 2018 is allowed and the order
passed by the respondent dated 05.7.2018 is set aside.
The respondent is directed to register the decree dated
29.4.1970 in O.S.No.6 of 1968 on the file of the
Principal District Court, Puducherry within a period of
one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. No costs.”
The issue 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. The decision in the case of S.Sarvothaman has considered
all the earlier decisions on the point including the case of
A.K. Gnanasankar Vs Joint-II SubRegistrar, Cuddalore-2 [reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
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.
11. The decision in the case of S.Sarvothaman was followed 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
12. In the case of S.Lingeswaran Vs. The Sub Registrar,
Kodumudi Registrar Office, Erode District, in W.P.No.9577 of 2021, dated
23.04.2021, the learned Single Judge of the Court was pleased to observe
as under:-:
“5. It is settled that a decree/order passed by a
Civil Court is not compulsorily registrable document.
Section 17(1) of the Registration Act (hereinafter
called as the 'Act') deals with compulsory registration
of documents. Section 17(2) of the Act is an exception
to Section 17(1) of the Act. Section 18 of the Act refers
to documents for which registration is optional. A
decree/order passed by the Civil Court will not fall
under Section 17(1) of the Act.
6. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Padala Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Padala
Gangamma, reported in AIR 1959 AP 626, has held
that a decree/order passed by a competent Court is not
compulsorily registrable document and the party
cannot be compelled to get the document registered
when there is no obligation cast upon him to register
the same. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
in A.K.Gnanasankar Vs. Joint-II Sub Registrar,
Cuddalore reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68, has held that,
a decree is a permanent record of Court and the
limitation prescribed for presentation of the document
under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, is not
applicable to a decree presented for registration.
7. The above judgments have been followed in
number of judgments of this Court and recently another
Division Bench of this Court in S.Sarvothaman Vs. The
Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret reported in (2019) 3 MLJ 571
has held that, as the Court decree is not a compulsorily
registerable document and the limitation prescribed
under the Registration Act would not stand attracted
for registering any decree. The relevant portion of the
judgment reads as follows:
"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."
8. The above judgment was followed in Anitha Vs.
The Inspector of Registration in W.P.No.24857 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
dated 01.03.2021, wherein it is held that the Registrar
cannot refuse registration of a Court decree on the
ground of limitation.
9. In view of the above settled position of law, the
respondent Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register the
decree on the ground that it is presented beyond the
period prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration
Act. In such circumstances, the impugned refusal check
slip issued by the respondent is not sustainable and it is
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned order passed by the
respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed
to register the decree, if it is otherwise in order. No
costs.”
13. In the case of M.Rajendran Vs The Inspector General of
Registration in W.P.(MD).Nos.8091 of 2020 etc., batch, dated 25.06.2021,
the learned Single Judge of this Court, after discussing the various
decisions on the said issue held as under:-
“16. It is evident that while the subsequent Division
Bench, which passed the order in W.A.(MD.No.336 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
2019 was dealing with this issue, a specific reference
was made to the judgment of the earlier Division Bench
in W.A.No.2385 of 2003 at para 14 of the Judgment. The
Subsequent Division Bench also took note of various
other judgments that were rendered on the same lines
and ultimately at paragraph 21 of the judgment, it was
held as follows:
“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 registrable 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
would not stand attracted.”
17. It is clear from the above that the limitation
prescribed under the Act will not stand attracted insofar
as an order or decree passed by a competent court is
concerned. This Judgment has also been consequently
followed in the latest judgment by a Division Bench in
W.A.(MD)Mo.902 of 2021, dated 26.04.2021. Therefore,
this ratio has been consistently followed till date.
In view of the ratio laid down aforesaid by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, which is squarely applicable to the
case on hand, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
14. In the present case, the reason cited in the impugned refusal
check slip is only the delay in submitting the said Sale Certificate issued
by the Hon'ble Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul for registration and that
issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court, where,
Section 23 of the Registration Act in the context of delay would not stand
in the way for the Registering Authority to entertain the Court orders and
decrees for registration. In this regard, it is relevant to reproduce the order
passed in W.P.No.33616 of 2022 etc. batch dated 27.02.2023 in the case of
Sathiyamoorthy Vs. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Pochampalli,
Krishnagiri District, where the learned Single Judge of this Court held as
under:-
“12. Pursuant to all these developments which had
taken place from 2019 till date, today when this batch
of cases are taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Silambanan,
learned Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted
that, as stated before this Court during the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
hearing, the draft circular to be issued by the Inspector
General of Registration as directed by this Court since
had already been sent to the Government, it has been
now approved by the Government through Letter No.
38490910/J2/2022-2 dated 24.02.2023 with the
following words.
“ I am to invite your attention to the reference cited
and to enclose the approved draft circular in e/f/vz;.
34930-C1-2022 to be issued by the Inspector General
of Registration to all the registering officers in Tamil
Nadu relating to registration of Court decrees based
on the directions of the High Court of Madras in its
order in W.P.No.33186/2022 dated 09.12.2022 as
required in your letter cited.
Yours faithfully, for Secretary to Government”
13. Learned Additional Advocate General would
further submit that, pursuant to the said approval
given by the State Government through their letter
dated 24.02.2023, the Inspector General of
Registration had issued the circular in Na.Ka.No.
34930/C1/2019 dated 27.02.2023 and annexing the
said circular, a letter also had been written by the
Inspector General of Registration in the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
reference No.34930/C1/2019 dated 27.02.2023.
14. Relying upon these communications, the learned
Additional Advocate General would submit that, what
is directed by this Court in the orders referred to
above, the Inspector General of Registration thus had
issued the circular dated 27.02.2023 after getting the
necessary approval in this regard under Section 69(2)
of the Act from the State Government, where, the main
grievances that were espoused by the petitioners' side
that, on two grounds since many times this kind of
Court decrees / judgments / orders were refused for
registration, those two main grounds / grievances of
the petitioners side have been redressed. The first
grievance is that, the limitation of four months period
under proviso to Section 23 of the Act and the second
one is insisting upon the registration fee ad valorem
for the value of the property covered under the Court
decree at the time of registration.
15. Those two grievances since have been redressed
through the circular dated 27.02.2023, the learned
Additional Advocate General would contend that, the
petitioners may not have any further grievance and the
said circular would be sent to all the registering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
authorities within a day or two, and on receipt of the
same those registering authorities would scrupulously
follow and act upon the directions given in the said
circular.
16. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing
for the petitioners side also having taken note of these
developments especially the contents of the circular
dated 27.02.2023, have expressed their satisfaction
that, at least now the Government, through the
Registration Department has come forward to clarify
this position to register the Court decree / judgment /
order without insisting upon the four months limitation
period (or) without insisting the registration fee for the
value of the property covered under the Court decree /
judgment / order at the time of registration.
17. I have considered the said submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties especially the
submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondents.
18. In the circular dated 27.02.2023, among other
things the Inspector General of Registration has stated
the following.
...........
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
19. In the said circular, at Para 9 as extracted herein
above, it has been made clear that, even after the four
months limitation period, the Court decrees /
judgments / orders if are presented for registration,
that should be accepted and registered by the
registering authorities and that position has been
clarified.
20. Like that, in para 10 of the circular, it is further
clarified that, only 1% (One percent) of the
registration charge of the suit value alone would be
insisted or collected for the purpose of registering the
Court orders / decrees / judgments.
21. Therefore, the two major issues under which these
litigations have come and some earlier litigations also
have been decided by this Court since have been
redressed by this clarificatory circular issued by the
Inspector General of Registration under the powers
vested in him under the provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908, there could be no further impediment for the
registering authorities to take up the Court decrees /
judgments / orders presented by these respective
petitioners for registration and to register the same if it
is otherwise in order. Not only the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
petitioners, but in future also, whenever such
judgments / decrees / orders passed by the Courts of
law are presented by the parties concerned for
registration, the same yardstick should be adopted by
the registering authorities by taking note of the import
of the circular dated 27.02.2023. By thus, many
prospective litigations on this point can be avoided.
22. Despite these two main grievances having been
redressed by the issuance of the circular dated
27.02.2023, on going through the entire circular, I find
that still some grey areas are available, but that is not
the issue in this batch of cases. Therefore, this Court
does not want to make any comment upon the other
grey areas and in this regard, it is for the concerned
authorities to redress it whenever it is required and it
would be taken care of at an appropriate time in an
appropriate proceedings.”
15. It is a well-settled principle of law that the proviso to Section 23
of the Registration Act, 1908 is directory in nature and not mandatory,
particularly in relation to decrees passed by Civil Courts. A decree passed
by a Civil Court is not a compulsorily registrable document under the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
16. Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with documents
for which registration is compulsory. However, Section 17(2) provides
exceptions to Section 17(1), thereby excluding certain documents,
including some court decrees, from the requirement of compulsory
registration. Additionally, Section 18 of the Act enumerates the categories
of documents for which registration is optional.
17. In view of the above, a decree or order passed by a Civil Court
does not fall within the scope of Section 17(1) and therefore is not
mandatorily registrable under the Registration Act, 1908.
18. Therefore, a person cannot be compelled to register a document
when there is no statutory obligation requiring such registration. In cases
where no mandatory duty is imposed on the party to register the document,
the limitation period prescribed for presentation of documents under
Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not apply to a
judgment and decree of a Civil Court that is presented for registration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
19. Thus, it is now well settled in law that a decree passed by a Civil
Court can be registered upon the presentation of certified copies of the
judgment and decree before the Sub-Registrar. The limitation period
prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, is not applicable
to such cases. Consequently, the Sub-Registrar is not empowered to refuse
registration of a court decree on the ground of delay or limitation. The
statutory period contemplated under Section 23 of the Act has been held to
be inapplicable to court decrees, as consistently affirmed by judicial
precedent.
20. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent for refusing to register the
Sale Certificate dated 13.02.2024, issued by the Additional Sub Judge,
Dindigul, are wholly untenable in law and cannot be sustained.
21. In light of the judgment referred to supra, it is a well-settled
proposition of law that the law of limitation is not applicable to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
registration of a court decree. A decree passed by a Civil Court, being a
permanent and conclusive adjudication of rights, is not subject to any
period of limitation for the purpose of registration. Accordingly, when
certified copies of the judgment and decree are duly presented, the Sub-
Registrar is under a statutory obligation to register the same. The
Registration Act, 1908, does not prescribe any time limit for the
registration of such court decrees.
22. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the limitation prescribed
under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, is not applicable to the
registration of court decrees. Consequently, the 2nd respondent cannot
refuse registration on the ground of delay.
23. In light of the above observations made and in the light of the
judgements referred to above, this Writ Petition stands allowed. The
impugned Refusal Check Slip in RFL/No.2 Joint Sub Registrar, Dindigul
in 51/2025 dated 29.04.2025 issued by the second respondent is hereby
quashed. The respondents are directed to register the Sale Certificate dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
13.02.2024, in Execution Petition No.128/2014 in O.S.No.392/2013
issued by the Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul, upon payment of
appropriate stamp duty in accordance with G.O.(Ms) No.100, Commercial
Taxes and Registration (J2) Department, dated 16.07.2025, within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgement.
24. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.08.2025
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
To:
1.The District Registrar,
District Registrar's Office,
Collector Office Campus,
Thadikombu Road,
Dindigul – 624 004.
2.The No.2 Joint Sub Registrar,
Joint Sub Registrar's Office,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
WP(MD).22562 of 2025
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Nsr
Pre-Delivery Order in
28.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 02:32:02 pm )
