Vishwanathan v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09..07..2024 Coram THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Writ Petition No.11243 of 2021 and W.M.P. No.11894 of 2021 Vishwanathan ..... Petitioner -Versus1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 004.
2.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Erode District.
3.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Sivagiri, Erode District.
..... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of refusal by the proceedings on the file of the 3rd respondent vide Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number: RFL/Sivagiri Erode/2/2021 dated 07.01.2021 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to receive and entertain, register the Court Final Decree dated 05.11.2020 made in O.S. No.169 of 2020 presented by the petitioner on 07.01.2021 for registration and return the original document to the petitioner
after considering the representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2021 in accordance with law and on merits expeditiously within a time frame stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.Prabakar For Respondent (s) : Mr.P.Anandhakumar, Government Advocate
ORDER
Challenge in this writ petition is mainly to the refusal check-slip dated 07.01.202 issued by the 3rd respondent in Refusal Number: RFL/Sivagiri Erode/2/2014 refusing to register the final decree granted in O.S.No.169 of 2020 dated 05.11.2020 and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to receive, entertain and register the final decree and return the original document to the petitioner after registration.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his son V.Lokesh Vaibhav filed a suit in O.S.No.169 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Erode, against him for partition of properties set out in the schedule to the plaint into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him. In the said suit, a compromise was arrived at between him and his son before the Lok Adalat on
03.10.2010 and a final decree was granted in the suit by judgement dated 05.10.2020.He was allotted suit B-Schedule property consisting of Item 1 and 2 as more fully described in the schedule. Thus, out out land in R.S.No.344/1 of Kollankoil 'A' Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District measuring an extent of 1.82.4 Hectares equivalent to Acres 4.50 cents and R.S.NO.345/5 measuring an extent of 1.49.5 Hectares equivalent to acres 3.69 1⁄2 cents and in all Acres 8.19 1⁄2 cents of land he is the absolute owner of the properties measuring an extent of 6.19 Acres of land comprised in R.S.No.344/1 (part) and R.S.345/5 (part) with specific boundaries. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the same pursuant to the final decree dated 05.102.2020 made in O.S.NO.169 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Erode.
The remaining extent in S.No.345/1 belong to some third parties. He is no way connected with the said lands. After obtaining a certified copy of final decree, when he produced the same for registration before the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent refused to register the same citing an existence of encumbrance over the property in R.S.NO.345/1 by way of order of attachment in I.A.No.12 of 2010 in O.S.No.8 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the order of attachment and he was not at all a party
to such suit. However, citing such an attachment relating to the larger extent of land, the 3rd respondent refused to register the final decree which requires interference at the hands of this court.
4. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Admittedly the final decree of the court dated 05.102.20 made in O.S.No.169 of 2020 which was presented by the petitioner for registration was refused to be registered by the 3rd respondent. It is needless to state that a decree is not compulsorily registrable and mere registration of a decree would not amount to transfer of any property. Therefore, there cannot be any refusal on the part of the registering authorities citing a reason that there is order of attachment with respect of a particular property. The provisions in Section 22B of the Registration Act, 1908 can be pressed into service to refuse registration of a document only in a case where an immovable property sought to be transferred by any means, attachment will come in the way as per section 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908. For mere registration of a decree of a civil court, attachment will not come in the way. Therefore, this court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned refusal check slip issued by the 3rd respondent in Refusal Number: RFL/Sivagiri Erode/2/2021 dated 07.01.2021 is quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to register the decree presented by the petitioner for registration within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.
Index : yes / no 09..07..2024 : yes / no kmk To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 004.
2.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Erode District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Sivagiri, Erode District.
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., kmk 09..07..2024