M.Muruganantham v. The Sub Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.09.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Writ Petition No.25980 of 2022 M.Muruganantham ... Petitioner Vs.

The Sub-Registrar, Office of Sub Registrar, Vikkiramangalam, Ariyalur Taluk & District - 621 701.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the respondent proceeding in Refusal Number: RFL/VIKKIRAMANGALAM/105/2022 dated 01/09/2022, Sub Registrar, Vikkiramangalam, Ariyalur District, quash the same as illegal and unsustainable and consequently direct the respondent to register the certified copy of the decree dated 29.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.171 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur. For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Sivakumar For Respondent :

Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader Page No.1 of 8

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the proceedings of the respondent dated 01.09.2022 refusing to register the certified copy of the decree dated 29.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.171 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur and for a consequential direction to the respondent to register the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the property in SF.No.107/1A to an extent of 0.119.80 ars (0.49 cents0 land situated at Andipattakadu - Revenue Village, Ariyalur Taluk & District was owned by him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.171 of 2012 along with one Mr.Saravanan before the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur for declaration of title of A-schedule property in SF.No.107/1A in his favour and permanent injunction against Mr.Nallendran and 8 others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property and the said suit was decreed on 29.02.2016, thereby, the petitioner presented the application before the respondent for registration on 01.09.2022, however, the respondent refused to Page No.2 of 8

register the same, vide Refusal Check Slip No.RFL//VIKKIRAMANGALAM/105/2022 dated 01.09.2022 on the ground that the decree has been presented for registration after 8 months, which is contrary to the period stipulated in Section 23 & 25 of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time limit is prescribed in the Registration Act with regard to registration of the deed through Court decree. Therefore, citing delay in presenting the document as reason for not registering the same is not sustainable.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Lingeswaran vs The Sub Registrar in W.P.No.9577 of 2021 dated 2304.2021, and in the said decision the Division Bench of this Court followed the earlier decisions reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68 (A.K.Gnanasankar vs. Joint - II Sub Registrar, Cuddalore) and 2019 (3) MLJ 571 (S.Sarvothaman vs. The SubRegistrar, Oulgarpet), wherein the Court held that, the Court decree is not a Page No.3 of 8

compulsorily registrable document and the option lies with the party in such circumstances. He would particularly rely on paragraphs 6 to 9 of the above decision, which are extracted hereunder:

"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 in A.K.Gnanasankar Vs. Joint-II Sub Registrar, Cuddalore reported in2007 (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 Page No.4 of 8

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 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." Page No.5 of 8

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the said application was rejected under section 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of a Court decree which when presented was not entertained citing delay in submission. It is to be pointed out that this Court in a catena of decisions had held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of a Court Decree on the ground of limitation. That being the case, the facts in the present case are identical to Lingeswaran's case and the ratio laid therein stands squarely attracted. Therefore, the rejection order is wholly in contravention of the order passed in Lingeswaran's case (supra).

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent and the respondent is directed to register the decree in O.S.No.171 of 2012 dated 29.02.2016 passed by the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur without referring the delay. No costs.

28.09.2022 Page No.6 of 8

vm Index :

Yes/No Speaking Order :

Yes/No Copy To:

The Sub-Registrar, Office of Sub Registrar, Vikkiramangalam, Ariyalur Taluk & District - 621 701.

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

vm Page No.7 of 8

28.09.2022 Page No.8 of 8