Chinnappan v. The Sub-Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.11.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI Chinnappan

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Sub-Registrar, Uthukkuli Sub Registrar Office Tiruppur District.

... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip in refusal number RFL/Uthukkuli/7/2022 dated 17.10.2022 and to quash the same as illegal and incompetent and consequently direct the respondent to register the decree dated 15.09.2003 passed in A.S.No.139 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Erode.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the refusal Check Slip in refusal number RFL/Uthukkuli/7/2022 dated 17.10.2022 and consequently direct the respondent to register the decree dated 15.09.2003 1/7

passed in A.S.No.139 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Erode.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the subject property of this writ petition was allotted to the plaintiffs vide a partition suit in O.S.No.1379 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode subsequent to the demise of the petitioner's grandfather. It is alleged that after passing of the final decree on 27.03.1976 in O.S.No.1379 of 1973 the plaintiff has taken the possession. The suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.35/1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perundurai was dismissed on 06.09.1999 and aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, an appeal in A.S.No.139 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.35/1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Erode and the same was also dismissed on 15.09.2003. On 17.10.

2022, the petitioner presented a decree and application before the respondent for registration, however, the respondent refused to register the same, vide Refusal Check Slip in RFL/Uthukuli/7/2022 dated 17.10.2022 on the ground that the decree has been presented for registration after a decade, 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 23.04.2021, 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), 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 3/7

this Court in A.K.Gnanasankar Vs. Joint-II Sub Registrar, Cuddalore reported in 2007 (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 SubRegistrar, Oulgaret reported in (2019) 3 MLJ 571 has held that, as the Court decree is not a compulsorily registerable document and the limitation 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 4/7

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."

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 Ligeswaran's case and the ratio laid therein stands squarely attracted. Therefore, the rejection order is wholly in contravention of the order passed 5/7

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 entertain the decree in A.S.No.139 of 2001, dated 15.09.2003 passed by the learned I Additional District Court, Erode without referring the delay. No costs. 30.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No rli To The Sub-Registrar, Uthukkuli Sub Registrar Office Tiruppur District 6/7

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rli 30.11.2022 7/7