ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 30.07.2014 and direct the third respondent herein to register the final decree and judgment dated 02.11.2012 passed in I.A.No.733 of 2012 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 on receipt of penalty and registration charges.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

One Kandasamy who is the brother of the petitioner's father filed a suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankari for partition of the suit properties. The petitioner's father and mother were arrayed as defendants 2 and 3 and the petitioner was arrayed as fourth defendant in the said suit. It is admitted that the suit was disposed of on the basis of a compromise. Based on the compromise the brother of the petitioner's father filed an application in I.A.No.733 of 2012 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 for passing final decree in terms of the compromise memo filed before the Sub-Court, Sankari. The Sub-Court, Sankari passed the final decree on 02.11.2012 in terms of the compromise memo. Thereafter, the petitioner had obtained the certified copy of the final decree in O.S.No.85 of 2011 and approached the third respondent for the purpose of registration of the final decree.

3. The said application was rejected on the ground that the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court cannot be registered as the same have been obtained after the period of limitation. Challenging the order of the third respondent, the above writ petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the third respondent passed the impugned order without jurisdiction. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds in this writ petition, it is seen that the main issue in this petition is whether Law of Limitation as prescribed under Section 23 of the Limitation Act would apply to decree of Civil-Court. Similar issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench in the case of A.K.Gnanasankar Vs.Joint-II Sub-Registrar, Cuddalore-2[(2007) 2 TCJ page 68]. It was held that the limitation prescribed for presenting a document does not apply to a decree of Civil-Court as it is a permanent record of the Court and to register the same, no limitation is prescribed. In yet another judgment delivered by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Sarvothaman Vs.Sub-Registrar, outgaret [(2019) 3 MLJ page 571], The earlier judgments were followed and the position is reiterated in the following lines:-

“13. As pointed out by us earlier, we need to first address the legal issue, which arises for consideration as to whether at all the law of limitation as prescribed under Section 23 of the Act would apply to a court decree.

14. This question is no longer res integra and this Court has consistently held that the law of limitation will not apply when a court decree is presented for registration. Earliest of the decisions, which has been followed consistently by a Division Bench of this Court is in the case of A.K. Gnanasankar Vs Joint-II Sub-Registrar, Cuddalore-2 [reported in 2007 (2)TCJ 68]. In the said decision, this Court held that the limitation prescribed for presenting a document does not apply to a decree, as it is a permanent record of the court and to register the same, no limitation is prescribed.

15. This decision was followed by one of us (TSSJ) in W.P.No.9352 of 2015 dated 31.3.2015 [B.Vijayan Vs. District Registrar & another]. Subsequently, a similar view had been taken by this Court in W.P.No.8247 of 2016 dated 07.3.2016 [G.Mudiyarasan & another Vs. Inspector General of Registration], which once again relied upon the decision in the case of A.K.Gnanasankar. Further, in the case of Arun Kumar Vs. Inspector General of Registration [W.P.No.16569 of 2016 dated 06.6.2016], this Court directed registration of a judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem by condon