IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.11.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.11096 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 Sengottian ... Petitioner -Vs-

The Sub-Registrar, Senthamangalam, Namakkal District. ... Respondent Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the proceedings in P.Doc.No.8/2009, dated 12.08.2013 from the file of the respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondent to register the said document by taking into consideration of the fact that the stamp duty payable by the petitioner is only 1% of the value of the share allotted to the petitioner's wife namely the 1^st plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shivakumaran For Respondent : Mr.A.Selvendran Government Advocate.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the proceedings in P.Doc.No.8/2009, dated 12.08.2013 from the file of the respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondent to register the said document by taking into consideration of the fact that the stamp duty payable by the petitioner is only 1% of the value of the share allotted to the petitioner's wife namely the 1^st plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

2. Heard Mr.D.Shivakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

3. The respondent issued the impugned notice, dated 12.08.2013 and thereby directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and the balance registration fees of Rs.95,865/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Five only). According to the petitioner, the respondent already issued the very same notice on 06.07.2009 which was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.2386 of 2010. On 14.06.2013, this Court while setting aside the said notice dated 06.07.2009 passed the following order:-

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Writ Appeal No.2395 of 2003 vide judgment dated 23.3.2007, the Division Bench of this Court considered the very same issue and rendered judgment giving direction to register the document even if it was presented after four months. The order of the Single Judge dated 04.4.2003 was set aside and the writ Appeal was allowed. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Division Bench held as follows:-

"8. It is useful to refer section 23 of the Registration Act which speaks about the time for presenting documents and reads as follows:

'23. Time for presenting documents Subject to the provisions contained in Section 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution:

Provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final."

The above provision makes it clear that all documents except will are to be presented before a proper officer and the same shall be presented within four months from the date of its execution. If we consider the date on which the final decree was passed by the Subordinate Court, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the document presented before the respondent is hopelessly barred by time. However, the Proviso appended to Section 23 makes it clear that a copy of decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which it was made or whether it is appealable within four months from the date on which it becomes final. It is not in dispute that unless the parties to the proceedings deposit the required stamps, fi