ORDER :

R. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to register the certified copy of the decree dated 04.07.2018 passed in the suit in O.S. No. 686 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk on payment of registration charges alone without insisting for payment of any stamp duty and without insisting on the period of limitation under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. Heard Ms. T.R. Jeyapalam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Murugan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

3. With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner's property in Resurvey No. 1/2 situated in Ramankulam Village, Avaniyapuram Firka, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District, to the extent of 8 acres 73 cents, absolutely belongs to him and in respect of which, since there has been some dispute, the petitioner along with other co-owners filed a suit in O.S. No. 686 of 2004 against some third parties and the suit has ultimately been decreed by the competent civil Court on 04.07.2018 declaring that the petitioner and other co-owners are the owners of the subject property. In that circumstances, all that the petitioner wants to register the copy of the decree passed by the civil Court in O.S. No. 686 of 2004, by the Registrar i.e., the second respondent herein and accordingly, he made a request to the second respondent to register the decree. However, the same has been refused by the respondent, especially, the second respondent on the ground that, the decree has not been submitted for registration within the time of limitation stipulated under Section 23 of the Registration Act and also the necessary fee/stamp duty has not been paid. Only in that circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

5. Heard Mr. T.R. Jeyapalam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who submits that, since the limitation of four months prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is not mandatory and it is only directory, moreover, the same can very well be condoned in cases, where Court decrees and orders were sought to be registered. In support of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of S. Sarvothaman v. Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret, Pondicherry, (2019) 3 MLJ 517.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, ie., the first respondent herein, in Circular No. 56710/C2/2001 dated 26.10.2002.

7. By relying upon this circular, the learned counsel submitted that, if at all any charge to be made for registering the Court decree and order, only the registration charge has to be collected and no other stamp duty can be demanded. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that, in view of the said law that have been settled under Section 23 of the Act and also on the basis of the circular referred to above dated 26.10.2002, the second respondent can not refuse to register the decree as desired by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court by issuing a mandamus as prayed for.

8. Heard Mr. M. Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, no doubt under Section 23 of the Act, limitation of four months time has been prescribed. But, at the same time, insofar as the decree and order is concerned, proviso to Section 23 of the Act makes it clear that, the four months limitation shall start from the date the order of decree if is appealable becomes final. Therefore, in case of the decree and order, under proviso to Section 23 of the Act, there is limitation. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that, insof