P.S.Vadivel v. The District Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.01.2021 CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE W.P.No.560 of 2021 P.S.Vadivel
...Petitioner
-Vs1. The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Karungalpalayam, Erode Town, 2.The Sub-Registrar, Registering Officer, Kodumudi SRO,
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order made in Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Kodumudi/5/2020 dated 03.11.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent, Quash the same and consequently, directing the 2nd respondent to register the compromise decree dated 03.01.2020 made in O.S.No.986 of 2019 on the file of the Learned First Additional Sub Court, Erode. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner approached the Sub Registrar, Kodumudi, Erode District / 2nd respondent to register the compromise decree in O.S.No.986 of 2019 dated 03.11.2020, but it was presented well beyond the time for registering the documents, and on this ground, the Sub-Registrar has issued a check slip indicating that the document was belatedly presented for registration.
2. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, and perused the documents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court in a judgment of this Court in K.Dhayanidhi vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2020 (2) TNCJ 737(Mad)], wherein, the
Court has held, after relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in S.Sarvothaman v. The Sub Registrar at Oulgaret, Puducherry [ 2019(3)MLJ 517 = AIR 2019 Mad 125] that registering a decree of the Court is an optional registration and hence, the limitation prescribed under Sections 23 and 25 of the Act, would not apply.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the Registration Act gives exception in the document and hence, the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the document.
5. The law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in S.Sarvothaman case cited supra, has settled the issue. The registration of a decree is only optional under Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, and therefore, the limitation prescribed under Section 23 of the Act, and the power to condone the delay after four months as provided under Section 25 of the Act, may not apply. There is however one exception to the rule in that, as per Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, where in a compromise decree, any properties other than the subject matter of the suit (in which compromise decree is passed) is included, then such compromise decree has to be registered under Section 17(1) of the Act. Therefore, except the category of compromise decrees as mentioned in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, for all other categories of decrees, the Registering Authority has to register the same without reference to any limitation.
6. So far as the decree required to register in the present petition is concerned, the subject to what is herein above stated, the Registering Authority is required to register the same. The petition is allowed in the manner indicated. No costs.
s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ssn To 1.The I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.
2. The District Registrar, District Registration Office, Karungalpalayam, Erode Town,
3.The Sub-Registrar, Registering Officer, Kodumudi SRO, +1 Cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate sr 1879.
+1 Cc to The Government Pleader sr 2155.
W.P.No.560 of 2021 AKII(CO) SP(02/03/2021)