G.Sumathi v. The Inspector General Of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.11.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Writ Petition No.28717 of 2022 G.Sumathi ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector of General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate, Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 28.

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Register Office Sriperumbudur, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent made in refusal check slip dated 21.09.2022, Sub Registrar at Sriperumbudur and quash the same and further directing the 2nd respondent to register the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2021 passed in the suit in O.S.No.348 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Sriperumbudur on payment of registration charges alone without insisting for payment of stamp duty and without insisting the period of Page No.1 of 10

limitation under section 23 of the Registration Act. For Petitioner :

Mr.D.S.Ramesh For Respondent :

Mr.C.Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.09.2022 refusing to register the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2021 made in O.S.No.348 of 2012 on the file of the file of the District Munsif Court at Sriperumbudur and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to register the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.348 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Sriperumbudur for declaration of title for consequential injunction against one Munusamy and his son and the said suit was decreed on 09.09.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the application before the second respondent for registration of the said decree on 21.09.2022, Page No.2 of 10

however, the respondent refused to register the same, vide Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/SRIPERUMBUDUR/27/2022 dated 21.09.2022 on the ground that the decree has been presented for registration after four 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 Sub-Registrar, Oulgarpet), Page No.3 of 10

wherein the Court held that, the Court decree is not a 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 Page No.4 of 10

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 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 Page No.5 of 10

costs."

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 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 respondents and the respondents are directed to entertain the decree in O.S.No.348 of 2012 dated 09.09.2021 passed by the District Munsif Page No.6 of 10

Court, Sriperumbudur without referring the delay. No costs. 01.11.2022 vm Index :

Yes/No Speaking Order :

Yes/No Copy To:

1.The Inspector of General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate, Pattinapakkam, Chennai - 28.

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Register Office Sriperumbudur, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

Page No.7 of 10

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

vm 01.11.2022 Page No.8 of 10

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

This writ petition was allowed by an order dated 01.11.2022 and it was posted under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' on the ground that an inadvertent error has crept in paragraph No.7 of the order. 2.Paragraph No.7 of the order shall read as follows : " 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 respondents and the respondents are directed to entertain the decree in O.S.No.348 of 2012 dated 09.09.2021 passed by the District Munsif Court, Sriperumbudur without referring the delay and if there is no other impediment, register the same and return the original decree to the petitioner."

3. Registry is directed to issue a fresh order copy after making necessary corrections.

20.04.2023 sp Page No.9 of 10

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

sp 20.04.2023 Page No.10 of 10