Allowed

Arul v. The District Registrar

Madras HC19 Jul 2023WP/5154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the refusal slip issued by the Sub-Registrar for the registration of a civil court decree. The court held that the four-month limitation period for registration does not apply to decrees, directing the Registrar to register the document within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The refusal check slip in proceedings RFL/ Vazhapady/ 16/ 2023 dated 07.02.2023 is quashed and the petitioner is directed to register the decree within four weeks.

Arul Vs The District Registrar — Partition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.5154 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.5154 of 2023

Arul

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Registrar, Registration Department, Salem.

¶11

the Sub-Registrar, Vazhapady, Salem District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for records on the file of 2nd respondent in proceedings RFL/ Vazhapady/ 16/ 2023 dated 07.02.2023 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the 2nd respondent to register the judgment dated 29.06.2022 in OS.316/2015, on the file of Subordinate Court, Attur, Salem District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Poornima For Respondents : (R1 & R2) :Mr.C.Jaya Prakash, Government Advocate

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.5154 of 2023

¶18

The refusal check slip issued by the second respondent / Registering Authority is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶19

2.The petitioner states that he instituted a Civil Suit in O.S.No.316 of 2015, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur, Salem District, for partition and consequential relief. The suit was decreed thereby declaring

¶20

1/5^th share each in the suit properties therein. The petitioner presented a decree for registration. The second respondent returned the decree on the ground that the decree is to be presented for registration within a period of four (4) months and therefore, the document cannot be registered.

¶21

3.As far as the decree passed by the Civil Court is concerned, such limitation would not be applicable and therefore, it can be registered at any point of time. Thus, the reason stated in the order impugned is not in consonance with the spirit of the Registration Act since there is no impediment for registering decree passed by the Civil Court of law.

¶22

4.In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned refusal check slip in proceedings RFL/ Vazhapady/ 16/ 2023 dated 07.02.2023 is quashed. The second respondent is directed to proceed with the

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶24

W.P.No.5154 of 2023

¶25

registration, if the document is presented otherwise in accordance with the procedures contemplated. The said exercise is directed to be contemplated within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed . No costs.

¶27

(sha) Index : Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶28

19.07.2023

¶29

¶30

The District Registrar, Registration Department, Salem.

¶31

the Sub-Registrar, Vazhapady, Salem District.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

3/4

¶34

W.P.No.5154 of 2023

¶35

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J.,

(sha)

W.P.No.5154 of 2023

19.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

4/4

Arul v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arul v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pash Space International Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture (WD1) Department

S.Mahalakshmi Vs The Inspector General of Registration

R.Kesava Moorthy Vs The District Collector

S.Padmanaban Vs the Chairman Cum Managing

Mohammed Faiz Basha Vs the Collector

M/s. Kochar Homes Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Chief Controlling Revenue