The main legal point established in the judgment is that an agreement of sale which does not create interest in immovable property is not prohibited from registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The judgment also highlights the flexibility in the place of registration as provided under Section 29(2) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.6962 of 2022, dated 21.06.2022.

Being aggrieved by the direction issued by the writ Court vide order dated 21.06.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.6962 of 2022, to register the decree in O.S.No.357 of 2021, dated 05.01.2022 granted by the IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, the Inspector General of Registration is on appeal

2. The petitioner in the writ petition had filed a suit in O.S.No.357 of 2021 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Madurai, seeking a money decree for a sum of Rs.1,51,25,000/- and interest at 12% per annum on Rs.1,50,00,000/- against one S.Sabeer Ussain, the second respondent herein. The amount that was sought to be recovered was the amount paid as advance by the first respondent herein under a unregistered sale agreement, dated 18.01.2021. In the said suit, a compromise was arrived at, in and by which, the defendant had agreed to receive the balance of consideration and execute a sale deed if he is successful in the litigation before the Revenue Authorities seeking patta. In the event of his failure, the defendant had agreed to return the advance amount. This decree in effect constituted a substituted agreement of sale subject to certain conditions. The writ petitioner presented the decree for registration before the third respondent who refused to register the document. Hence, the writ petitioner had approached this Court seeking a Mandamus as stated above. The writ petition was resisted by the appellants contending that the decree relates to a property which belongs to the Government and therefore, the same cannot be registered in view of Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908. The next contention that was projected was that being a decree which affects immovable property, it can be registered only with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar of the place where the property is situate. The third ground is that a litigation relating to grant of patta is pending in W.A.No.1122 of 2009 at the instance of the defendant in the suit and others and an order of stay has been granted. The Government has also been made as a party to the present writ petition. The writ Court rejected the contentions of the appellants for reasons recorded and allowed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal.

3. Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General would reiterate all the three submissions made before the writ Court. He would submit that even though the decree is only an agreement to convey, being a decree of the Court, it cannot be treated lightly. He would point out that registration of this document would amount to create encumbrance over the property which belongs to the Government and therefore, the Registrar was justified in refusing registration. Further arguing, the learned Additional Advocate General would point out that since the valuation of the property is 'zero', the document cannot be registered. Relying upon Section 29(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, the learned Additional Advocate General would content that a copy of the decree or order can be presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar in whose sub-District the order was made or where the decree or order does not affect immovable property. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, if a decree or order affects immovable property, then the registration must be done with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar of the place where the property is situate and not in any other place. The pendency of the writ appeal is invoked as a ground to refuse registration.

4. Contending contra, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the first submission of the learned Additional Advocate General based on Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, is wholly misconceived. He would point out that what is prohibited under 22(A) is only registration of instruments relating to transfe