P. Nallathambi v. The State Rep. By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P. No. 1094 of 2018 P.Nallathambi .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The State Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 028.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Magudanchavadi, Sankari Taluk, Salem District - 637 103.
4.P.Subramani 5.S.Sabitha 6.R.Malarkodi 7.S.Madeswaran .. Respondents (R4 to R7 are impleaded as per order dated 07.03.2018 in W.M.P. No.4400 of 2018 in W.P. 1094 of 2018) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to direct the third respondent to accept the reasons set forth by the petitioner for belated submission of the order made on 11.01.1994 in O.S. No.77 of 1993 by the learned Subordinate Judge of Sub Court Sankari, Salem District for registration and as well complete registration proceedings of the same within a stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr. A.S.Palanisamy For Respondents 1-3: Mr. P.P.Purushothaman Government Advocate 4-7 : No appearance O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to direct the third respondent to accept the reasons set forth by the petitioner
for the belated submission of the decree in O.S. No.77 of 1993 dated 11.01.1994, by the learned Sub Court, Sankari, Salem District, for registration.
2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner states that the decree in O.S. No.77 of 1993 was passed by the Sub Court, Sankari on 11.01.1994. It is admitted that the decree dated 11.01.1994, was on the basis of a compromise memo signed by the parties. Based on compromise memo an execution petition in E.P. No.60 of 1994 in O.S. No.77 of 1993 was also filed. After the decree was obtained in O.S. No.77 of 1993, the petitioner approached the Sub Registrar, Magudanchavadi, the third respondent herein, for registration of decree in O.S. No.77 of 1993 dated 11.01.1994. Strangely the petitioner's document, presented for registration was returned by impugned cheque slip dated 15.12.2017. The third respondent returned the decree stating that the document namely the decree of Court is not presented within a period of four months from the date of the order and that therefore, under Section 23 of the Registration Act the said decree cannot be registered. This Court in many cases has held that four months time prescribed for presenting documents does not apply to a decree which is a permanent record of Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.K.Gnanasankar Vs. Joint Sub Registrar II, Cuddalore, reported in [2007 (2) TCJ 68]. The above judgment was followed and relied upon by this Court in several precedents subsequently reiterating the position that a decree of Court cannot be returned on the ground of limitation.
4. This Court finds no valid reason or legal ground for returning the document namely Civil Court's decree when it was presented for registration. As it is held by this Court consistently, the decree of Court should be construed as a permanent record of Court for registration and that no limitation can be pressed into service. Having regard to the principle followed by this Court in several precedents and the admitted facts in this case, this Court has no hesitation to grant relief to the petitioner.
5. It is seen that the prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to direct the third respondent to accept the reasons set forth by the petitioner for the belated submission of the order dated 11.01.1994. When a Civil Court's decree is presented for registration, there is no question of applying Section 23 of the Registration Act. Though the prayer in the Writ Petition is not appropriate, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction: "The impugned order by cheque slip No.3/2017 dated
15.12.2017 is hereby quashed. The third respondent is directed to register the Civil Court's decree in O.S. No.77 of 1993 dated 11.01.1994, in accordance with law, after following the usual formalities within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the second respondent to collect the stamp duty and charges that are required to be paid by the petitioner for registration of Civil Court's decree."
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bkn To 1.The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 028.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Magudanchavadi, Sankari Taluk, Salem District - 637 103.
4.The Subordinate Judge, Sankari, Salem District.
+2cc to Mr.A.S.Palanisamy, Advocate, S.R.No. 12568 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 12786 W.P. No. 1094 of 2018 PCH(CO) GN(13/07/2021)