Allowed

S.Subashini v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC28 Apr 2021WP/10465/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order refusing to register a civil decree beyond the four-month limitation. The High Court held that a decree is not compulsorily registrable, so the Section 23 limitation does not apply, and directed registration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.03.2021 set aside; Sub Registrar, Vellore directed to register the decree if otherwise in order.

S.Subashini Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.04.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.10465 of 2021

¶6

and W.M.P.No.11069 of 2021

¶7

S.Subashini .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai - 28. 2. The District Registrar (Administration), Deputy Inspector General, Vellore, Vellore District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1511/Aa1/2021, dated 01.03.2021, passed by the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to register the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016, passed in O.S.No.222 of 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore District within stipulated time period.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.Sathish for Mr.T.Sundaravadanam For Respondents : Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Special Government Pleader. - - - - -

¶10

O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent concurring with the order passed by the Sub Registrar, Vellore in refusing to register the decree passed in the suit in O.S.No.222 of 2015, dated 20.10.2016, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore on the ground that the Decree placed for registration beyond the period of four months after obtaining the copy of the Decree.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and peaceful possession against one Velu @ Kuppusamy Mudaliyar and others in O.S.No.222 of 2015, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore. By judgment and decree dated 20.10.2016, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the decree before the Sub Registrar, Vellore, for registering the same. However, the Sub Registrar, Vellore refused to register the same stating that the decree was placed for registration after four months from the date of obtaining a copy of the decree from the Civil Court and it could not be registered and returned the same. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner filed a petition before the second respondent and the second respondent vide impugned order dated 01.03.2021, stated that the Sub Registrar, Vellore was right in refusing to register the decree presented by the petitioner as it was beyond the period of limitation. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records carefully.

¶15

The Sub Registrar refused to register the document relying upon Section 23, of the Registration Act, which prescribes time limit of four months for presentation of document for registration from the date of its execution and in case of a decree, within four months from the date of the decree and if it is appealable, within four months from the date on which it becomes final. Section 23 reads as follows:

¶16

"23. Time for presenting documents.— Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution:

¶17

Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final."

¶18

It is settled that a decree/order passed by a Civil Court is not compulsorily registrable document. Section 17(1) of the Registration Act (hereinafter called as the 'Act') deals with compulsory registration of documents. Section 17(2) of the Act

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

is an exception to Section 17(1) of the Act. Section 18 of the Act refers to documents for which registration is optional. A decree/order passed by the Civil Court will not fall under Section 17(1) of the Act.

¶21

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 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.

¶22

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 under the Registration Act would not stand attracted for registering any decree. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

¶23

"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."

¶24

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.

¶25

In view of the above settled position of law, the 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 order dated 01.03.2021, passed by the second District Registrar, is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

passed by the second respondent is set aside and the Sub Registrar, Vellore is directed to register the decree, if it is otherwise in order. Connected MP is closed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kk
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai - 28.
2. The District Registrar (Administration),
Deputy Inspector General,
Vellore, Vellore District.
+1cc to Mr.T.Sundaravadanam, Advocate, S.R.No.26102
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.26352
W.P.No.10465 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.11069 of 2021
SSI(CO)
CB(13/07/2021)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Subashini v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Subashini v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Sampath Vs The District Collector

K.Athilakshmipathi Vs The District Revenue Officer

S.Palani Vs The Tahsildar

S.Elumalai Vs The Sub Registrar

Mr.M.Ayyakani Vs Joint Sub Registrar II

Habibullah Vs State Rep by