IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.NO.11205 OF 2022

D.Mageswari

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration,

Registration Department,

Santhome, Chennai-4.

2.The Joint Sub-Registrar I,

Sub-Registrar Office,

Vellore.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to

register the sale deed bearing Pending Document No.110 of 2021,

dated 04.08.2021 on the file of the second respondent as a

regular document and release the same to the petitioner.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan

For Respondents

:

Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for issuance

of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to register the

sale deed bearing Pending Document No.110 of 2021, dated

04.08.2021 on the file of the 2nd respondent and release the

same to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, she has entered into

an agreement of sale with one P.Natarajan for purchase of

agricultural lands measuring an extent of 2.82 Acres comprised

in S.Nos.51, 52/1 and 53, under Patta No.354, situated at

Thellur village, Vellore taluk, Vellore District under sale

agreement dated 30.03.2009 in Doc.No.2828 / 2009. Whileso, as

the said Natarajan, the land owner refused for execution of sale

deed within the stipulated time, the petitioner filed a suit in

O.S.No.118 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Subordinate

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Judge, Vellore. Thereafter, the said suit was decreed in favour

of the petitioner, granting specific performance of the sale

agreement dated 30.03.2009. Pursuant to the said decree, the

petitioner after depositing the balance amount, levied execution

of decree, vide O.E.P.No.83 of 2019 on the file of the Principal

Subordinate Judge and the Execution Court executed the sale deed

on 17.03.2020 and directed the registry to submit the same for

registration before the 2nd respondent. However, due to Covid-19

pandemic, the same was not complied within the stipulated time.

Thereafter, an appointment for registration was fixed online on

02.08.2021 and the sale deed was submitted before the 2nd

respondent on 04.08.2021 for registration, however, the 2nd

respondent refused to complete the registration on the ground

that the document was not presented within the time stipulated

under Section 23 of the registration Act, 1908 and delay being

more than six months not condonable under Section 25 and kept it

as Pending Doc.No.110 of 2021. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the

present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time

limit is prescribed in the Registration Act with regard to

registration of the deed through Court decree. Therefore, citing

delay in presenting the document as reason for not registering

the same is not sustainable.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a

decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the

case of S.Lingeswaran vs The Sub Registrar in W.P.No.9577 of

2021 dated 23.04.2021, and in the said decision the Division

Bench of this Court followed the earlier decisions reported in

2007 (2) TCJ 68 (A.K.Gnanasankar vs. Joint -II Sub Registrar,

Cuddalore) and 2019 (3) MLJ 571 (S.Sarvothaman vs. The Sub-

Registrar, Oulgarpet ), wherein the Court held that, the Court

decree is not a compulsorily registrable document and the option

lies with the party in such circumstances. He would particularly

rely on paragraphs 6 to 9 of the above decision, which are

extracted hereunder:

“6. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High

Court in Padala Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Padala

Gangamma, reported in AIR 1959 AP 626, has held that

a decree/ord