IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
The Joint Sub-Registrar - I, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris - Appellant
Versus
P. Vasantha Kumari – Respondent
W.A. No. 2174 of 2024 and C.M.P.No. 15384 of 2024
Decided On : 22-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
(R. Subramanian, J.)
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent, against the order dated 05.01.2024 made in W.P.No.36564 of 2023.)
The respondent herein filed W.P.No.36564 of 2023 seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Joint Sub-Registrar - I, Udhagamandalam / appellant herein regarding a refusal cheque slip issued by the said Officer on 29.09.2023, to quash the same and to register the decree in O.S.No.102 of 2004 in accordance with law.
2. The background facts that are necessary for disposal of the decree are as follows:-
The respondent herein had claimed that 5 cents of land in West Bury Road, Udhagamandalam Town belong to one Nallusamy Naidu. The said Nallusamy Naidu bequeathed the property in favour of the husband of the respondent under a registered Will bearing Document No. 24 of 1979. After the demise of the said Nallusamy Naidu, the Will was probated. The husband of the 1st respondent, Mr.P.Prasad died on 09.06.1993, leaving behind the 1st respondent and her daughter as legal heirs while so, the father-in-law of the petitioner, Pandurangan sold the property to one T.G.Bridget suppressing the Will. On learning about the said sale, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.102 of 2004 before the Sub-Court, Udhagamandalam seeking a declaration that the sale is null and void. The said suit came to be decreed exparte on 08.06.2005.
3. Attempts made by the defendant in the suit, Mr.T.G.Bridget to have the exparte decree set aside also failed in as much as the application to set aside the exparte decree filed in I.A.No.698 of 2005 was dismissed for default on 03.03.2006. An application in I.A.No.283 of 2013 filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore I.A.No.698 of 2005 was also dismissed on 12.08.2014. It is claimed by the petitioner that the said order has become final. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the decree for registration as aforesaid. The Registrar refused to register the decree on the ground that it is an exparte decree, relying upon the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration on 27.02.2023. It is this refusal cheque slip that was challenged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition.
4. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the document was presented belatedly after the period of four months under the proviso to Section 23 of the Act. The learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition concluding that the proviso to Section 23 has been held to be inapplicable to the Court decrees and that the Registrar cannot launch upon the enquiry regarding the validity of a decree issued by a Civil Court. The learned single Judge rightly observed that unless the decree presented for registration is subsequently set aside or over ruled or modified by a competent forum, it is the duty of the Registrar to register the document. Quite surprisingly, the Registrar has chosen to challenge the said direction. We are unable to fathom as to how the Registrar can maintain an appeal, since he is not an aggrieved person. This kind of frivolous appeals must be avoided. But however, a ground is urged that in view of the circular of the Inspector General of Registration, which according to the appellant, is superior to the Constitution of India and any decree or order passed by the Civil Court in India, an exparte decree cannot be registered, we were constrained to issue notice to the Inspector General of Registration asking him to explain as to how such circular came to be issued by him, directing the Registrars not to register exparte decrees.
5. An affidavit has been filed by the Inspector General of Registration stating that such a circular came to be issued because of the directions issued by a single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD).No.5955 of 2014 dated 27.07.2016. The relevant portion of the said circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration dated 27.02.2023 reads as follows:-
6. The said c
A valid decree must be registered by the Registrar without questioning its validity, as the power to set aside a decree lies solely with a competent Civil Court.
No circular will prevail over the Act or Rules, and the Registrar is not the competent authority to testify the validity of the decree presented for registration.
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 Regist....
The main legal point established is that decrees, if declaratory in nature and not involving any land other than the suit land, may not be compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Regi....
No express legal bar exists to refuse registration of appellate decree confirming already registered original decree.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.