Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sathiyamoorthy - Petitioner
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Krishnagiri – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.33616, 33927, 33964, 34144, 34174, 34252, 34775, 34946, 35094, 35096 and 35230 of 2022 and W.P.Nos.91, 478, 678, 1982, 3177, 4001, 2189, 2613, 3679, 3702, 5365 and 5679 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.616, 5389, 2818 and 3795 of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Registration Act - Refusal to Register Court Decrees - Section 23 - Section 25 - The court clarified that the limitation of four months prescribed under the proviso of Section 23 of the Act should not stand in the way to register the Court decrees/judgments/orders, as they are eternal unless varied, modified, or set aside by a higher judicial forum. The Inspector General of Registration issued a circular to all registering authorities to strictly follow the judgment of the Court in W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019 and W.P.No.4591 of 2020, directing them to register the Court decrees without insisting on the limitation period or the registration fee based on the value of the property covered under the Court decree at the time of registration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the stand taken by the registering authority refusing to register the court decrees/orders/judgments, citing the limitation of four months under Section 23 of the Registration Act. The court clarified that the limitation should not stand in the way of registering court decrees and directed the Inspector General of Registration to issue a circular to all registering authorities to strictly follow the judgment of the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the limitation of four months under Section 23 of the Registration Act should not prevent the registration of court decrees. It directed the Inspector General of Registration to issue a circular to all registering authorities to strictly follow the judgment of the Court and register the court decrees without insisting on the limitation period or the registration fee based on the value of the property covered under the Court decree at the time of registration.
Issues: The main issue was the refusal of registering authorities to register court decrees/orders/judgments citing the limitation of four months under Section 23 of the Registration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the limitation of four months under Section 23 of the Registration Act should not stand in the way of registering court decrees, as they are eternal unless varied, modified, or set aside by a higher judicial forum.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the respective respondents for reconsideration, directing them to register the court orders/decrees/judgments without any further delay, based on the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration.
ORDER :
(Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 26.04.2022 made in refusal check slip reference No. Ref. No.RFL/Pochampalli/13/2022 refusing to register the court Decree in O.S No. 99/ 2011 dated 06.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate court krishnagiri Krishnagiri District vide Temporary Registration No. TP/118192723/2022 dated 26.04.2022 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the said decree and to return the documents on its registration forthwith.)
Since the issue raised in these writ petitions is common, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, all these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Invariably in all these cases, the respective prayer sought for by the petitioners is that, challenging the stand taken by the registering authority refusing to register the court decrees/orders/judgments, which were produced for registration before the concerned registering authority within the meaning of Section 23 of the Registration Act.
3. Mainly two reasons were adduced by the registering authorities for such refusal; first reason is that, under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 under the heading 'Time for presenting documents' since a limitation has been prescribed under the proviso to Section 23, under which four months time has been granted from the date of the court decrees/orders/judgments, within W.P.No.33616 of 2022 etc., batch of cases which, if the same are produced/presented for registration, that can be registered by the registering authorities, and beyond which time they cannot register the same.
4. Since that being the main reason which caused for such rejection made in number of cases, in earlier occasions also, that issue had come up before this Court and the earliest order was passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019 dated 20.06.2019 (K.Krishnan -Vs- Inspector General of Registration and Another) followed by number of judgments.
5. In those judgments, this Court had clarified the position that the limitation of four months prescribed under the proviso of Section 23 of the Act should not stand in the way to register the Court decrees/judgments/orders, as the Court decrees and orders are eternal, unless it is varied, modified or set aside by the higher judicial forum. Therefore, the four months limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 23 is an artificial embargo that has been put against the declaration made by the Civil Court decree as well as the judgments and orders passed by the other Courts including the High Courts. Hence, such clarification has been made in those orders referred to above many times by this Court.
6. Despite that, the registering authorities at various places in the State of Tamil Nadu, under the Inspector General of Registration, time and again have taken the very same stand and have refused to register the documents of those who presented such judgment and decree passed by the Court of law to get it registered after four months period from the date of the order/judgment/decree.
7. One such case when came up for hearing in W.P.No.33186 of 2022 before this Court and by order on 09.12.2022, the following direction had been given.
- W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019 dated 20.06.2019 (K. Krishnan -Vs- Inspector General of Registration and Another)
- W.P.No.4591 of 2020 etc., batch of cases dated 29.07.2021 (Mani alias Devarasu -Vs- District Registrar and Another)
5. Despite repeated orders have been passed by this Court in most of the cases of this natur
The court ruled that registration authorities must comply with court orders and cannot refuse registration based on previously set aside grounds.
(1) Limitation prescribed under Registration Act will not stand attracted insofar as an order or decree passed by a competent court is concerned.(2) Registration fees should be levied only on total v....
The impugned circular and Rule 44(1)(i) were found to be contrary to sections 34 and 35 of the Registration act, 1908 and beyond the legislative competence of the respondents.
The Sub-Registrar's powers to refuse registration are limited to specific grounds outlined in the Registration Act, and any refusal based on arbitrary reasons or external pressures is unlawful.
Court emphasized that non-communication of an order affects limitation commencement, allowing appeals within reasonable time frames. Omission of statutory requirements can render previous refusals in....
The Registering Officer must verify original documents for property registration to prevent fraud, and parties claiming rights must establish their claims before a competent court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
