Court decrees are not subject to the limitation period under Section 23 of the Registration Act; registration must be allowed irrespective of presentation delay.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17 and 23 - Writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus against refusal to register a Sale Certificate - It was held that the limitation prescribed under Section 23 does not apply to the registration of court decrees - The Sub-Registrar's refusal to register the decree on the ground of delay was deemed illegal and arbitrary, reaffirming the settled law that court orders are not bound by strict registration timelines. (Paras 10, 12, 20, 22)

(B) Legal Principles - Registration of court decrees should not be subject to the limitation provisions of the Registration Act; court decrees are not compulsorily registrable documents. Issues include the scope of Section 23 concerning decrees and the denial of registration based on arbitrary delay claims. (Paras 11, 16, 19, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner acquired property at an auction confirmed by the court, but the registration of the Sale Certificate was denied by the Sub-Registrar for being belated, leading to the filing of this Writ Petition.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the refusal to register the Sale Certificate unjustifiable, ordering registration to be completed within a specified timeframe.

Issues: Whether the limitation under Section 23 applies to court decrees and the legality of the refusal to register.

Ratio Decidendi: It was confirmed that court decrees are exempt from the limitation requirements of the Registration Act, thus ensuring that they must be registered when presented.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; the refusal check slip quashed.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed, under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Refusal Check Slip issued by the 2^nd Respondent in RFL/No.2 Joint Sub Registrar, Dindigul in 51/2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd Respondent to register the Sale Certificate dated 13.02.2024 issued by the Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul on payment of Stamp duty as per G.O.(Ms)No.100 Commercial Taxes and Registration (J2) Department dated 16.07.2025.

2. The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Writ Petition and necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-

(a)The property located in Dindigul Taluk, Thottanuthu Village, Survey Nos. 628/8 and 628/3, which was converted into several house plots under the layout name "K.A. Vasimalai Nagar, Angu Vilas Kudiyiruppu" and approved vide Approval No. R.Dis.No. 10465/1998, includes the southern portion of Plot No. 6, referred to as Plot No. 6-Part. This portion was brought to auction in Execution Petition No.128/2014 in O.S.No.392/2013 on 29.11.2023. The Petitioner successfully acquired the property at the auction for a sum of Rs. 7,53,000/-. The auction was confirmed by the concerned Civil Court on 13.02.2024, and thereafter a Sale Certificate was issued by the Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul.

(b)Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for the delivery of the property in E.A. No. 9/2024, which was granted by the Sub Court on 06.03.2025, and delivery was completed on 17.03.2025. Following this, the original Sale Certificate was returned to the petitioner by the concerned Civil Court. On 08.04.2025, the petitioner presented the Sale Certificate for registration before the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent returned the document after 21 days, on 29.04.2025, stating that it was presented for registration belatedly, and issued a Check Slip. The Check Slip, bearing RFL/No. 2 Joint Sub-Registrar, Dindigul in 51/2025, was served to the petitioner on 02.05.2025. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Heard Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the Respondents.

4. Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that no time limit is prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908 , or the relevant Rules for the registration of court orders, decrees, or communications. Despite this, the 2^nd Respondent has unjustifiably refused to register the document and has issued a Refusal Check Slip. Learned counsel further submits that, in respect of registration of Court orders, decrees, and proceedings, the Registration Act and Rules do not stipulate any period of limitation. Moreover, the Government, by way of G.O.(Ms) No.100, Commercial Taxes and Registration (J2) Department, dated 16.07.2025, has prescribed the stamp duty payable on sale certificates issued by courts and competent authorities. However, the 2nd Respondent, without issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, has rejected the registration on the ground of delay. Such action on the part of the 2nd Respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without any legal basis.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on various judgments of this Hon'ble Court and contended that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra. He further submitted that similar Refusal Check Slips issued by the registering authorities have been challenged before this Hon'ble Court on several occasions, and this Hon'ble Court has consistently held that there is no time limit prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908 , for the registration of court orders and sale certificates issued by a Court of law. One such decision is in W.P. Nos. 4591 of 2020 and batch cases, wherein the Hon'ble Court, by order dated29.07.2021, [in the case of Mani @ Devarasu v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66490

Court decrees are not subject to the limitation period under Section 23 of the Registration Act; registration must be allowed irrespective of presentation delay.

Cases Referred (1)