SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2239

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Stalin Abimanyu, Additional Government Pleader.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. RSamratt.

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 9, Rule 9 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 23 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Refusal to register an exparte decree - The court held that the Registrar must register a valid decree without questioning its validity, as long as it has not been set aside - The circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration was overruled as it improperly restricted the registration of exparte decrees - The court emphasized that the powers to set aside a decree lie solely with a competent Civil Court. (Paras 4, 8, 10, 11)

(B) Judicial Authority - The Registrar cannot question the validity of a decree issued by a Civil Court, as this would infringe upon the judicial process and the powers of the courts. (Paras 7, 9)

Facts of the case:
The respondent sought to register a decree from a suit declaring a sale null and void, which was refused by the Registrar based on a circular regarding exparte decrees. The learned single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition, stating that the Registrar must register the decree unless it is set aside.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Registrar's refusal to register the decree was unjustified and emphasized the need to respect the finality of court decrees.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Registrar could refuse to register an exparte decree and the validity of the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a valid decree must be registered without further inquiry, reaffirming that the powers to question a decree rest solely with the courts.

Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.

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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top