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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 21490

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice R. SUBRAMANIAN
The Joint Sub Registrar-1 – Appellant
Versus
P. Vasantha Kumari – Respondent



An exparte decree from a civil court must be registered by the registrar without further inquiry, as long as it remains unchallenged.

Headnote:

Decree - Registration - Tamil Nadu Registration Act - Sections 23 - The court held that an exparte decree issued by a competent civil court is valid and binding, and the registrar is mandated to register it without further inquiry into its validity.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a writ petition against the registrar's refusal to register an exparte decree in a property dispute case, arguing that the decree was valid and had not been set aside.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the registrar's refusal to register the exparte decree was erroneous. It emphasized that decrees must be registered unless they are set aside, overruling previous contrary directives.

Issues: Whether the registrar can refuse to register an exparte decree based on a circular that deems such decrees invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to set aside court decrees lies solely with competent civil courts, and registrars must register valid decrees presented to them without questioning their legitimacy.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, mandating the registration of the decree without inquiry by the registrar.

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

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:-

"f) Stay Order, ex-parte order nghd;witfis ghhi; t 2y; fzl; cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; jPh;g;ghizapy;

bjhhptpff; g;glL; s;st

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