Allowed

P.Malliga v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC11 Nov 2021WP/24101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged a refusal Check Slip by the Sub-Registrar denying registration of a partition decree due to alleged delay. Relying on precedent, the Court held that statutory limitation for presentation does not apply to court decrees. The impugned slip was set aside, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to register the decree immed

What did the court decide?

The impugned refusal check slip dated 17.09.2021 is set aside. The Sub-Registrar is directed to register the decree dated 04.06.2018 presented on 19.08.2021 and release the same.

P.Malliga Vs The Inspector General of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.11.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶4

WP.No.24101 of 2021

¶5

P.Malliga ... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028

¶8

2.The District Registrar, Chennai North, No.26, Rajaji Salai,

¶9

Chennai 600 001

¶10

3.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, 93/1, Brickklin Road, A Block, TVK Nagar, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai 600 012 ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of Refusal Check Slip reference No.RFL/Purasaivakkam/Book dated 02.09.2021 on the file of the third respondent, quash the same as illegal and consequential direction to the third respondent to register the certified copy of the decree dated 04.06.2018 passed in CS.No.396 of 2019.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Sharath Chandran

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of Refusal Check Slip reference No.RFL/Purasaivakkam/Book dated 02.09.2021 on the file of the third respondent, quash the same as illegal and consequential direction to the third respondent to register the

¶16

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

¶17

certified copy of the decree dated 04.06.2018 passed in CS.No.396 of 2019.

¶18

The petitioner and her brother obtained compromise judgment and decree for partition and separate possession by the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2018 in CS.No.396 of 2012 on the file of this Court. The certified copy of the decree was presented before the third respondent for registration on 19.08.2021. However, it was refused for registration by the impugned order dated 17.09.2021 for the reason that as per Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, the document is being refused for the reason of delay in presentation. This Court already held that limitation prescribed under Sections 23 and 25 of the said Act will not apply to a decree since it is not compulsorily registrable. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in batch of writ petitions in WP.Nos.4591 of 2020, etc. dated 29.07.2021. This Court relied upon the judgments of various High Courts and held that the limitation prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 would not stand attracted for presenting a decree or order of a civil court for registration.

¶19

In view of the above, the impugned check slip cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned check slip issued by the third respondent dated 17.09.2021 is set aside. The third respondent is directed to register the decree dated 04.06.2018 which was presented for registration on 19.08.2021 forthwith and release the same.

¶20

With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

lok

¶26

¶27

1.The Inspector General of Registration,

¶28

100, Santhome High Road, Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam, R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028

¶29

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

¶30

2.The District Registrar, Chennai North, No.26, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001

¶31

3.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, 93/1, Brickklin Road, A Block, TVK Nagar, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai 600 012

¶32

+1 cc to Mr.Goving Chandrasekaran, Advocate Sr.NO. 58132 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.NO. 58177

¶33

WP.No.24101 of 2021

¶34

NRL(CO) A.SK(30.11.2021)

¶35

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

P.Malliga v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Malliga 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

Susheelamma, Vs The District Revenue Officer

J.Sathish Kumar Vs The Tahsildar

Saraswathi Vs The District Registrar

D.Vinayagam Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

T.Siva Vs The District Collector

K.Thiyagarajan(Died) Vs The District Collector