- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rathinam v. The Sub Registrar
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner’s father purchased the subject property and died intestate on 16.11.2006, leaving the petitioner and other family members as legal heirs. The petitioner was denied his share of the property and filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.198 of 2007. The suit was decreed by preliminary judgment and decree dated 05.01.2008, followed by a final decree dated 22.10.2009 after the property was divided by metes and bounds. Due to the petitioner’s ignorance, the final decree was not presented for registration immediately. The petitioner presented the certified copies of the judgment and decrees for registration only on 31.12.2021. The respondent refused to register the documents on the ground that they were presented after the prescribed four-month period from the date of the decrees, as indicated in the impugned check slip dated 31.12.2021.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the limitation period prescribed under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act applies to the registration of a Civil Court’s judgment and decree.
- Whether the refusal by the respondent to register the judgment and decrees presented after a delay is legally sustainable.
- Whether the impugned check slip dated 31.12.2021 refusing registration of the judgment and decrees should be quashed.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Registration Act, particularly Sections 17, 18, 23, and 25. It observed that the proviso under Section 23 of the Registration Act is directory and not mandatory for decrees passed by the Civil Court. The Court clarified that a decree passed by the Civil Court is not a compulsorily registrable document under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. Section 17(2) provides exceptions, and Section 18 refers to documents for which registration is optional. Since the judgment and decree do not fall under the category of compulsorily registrable documents, the limitation period for presentation prescribed under Sections 23 and 25 is not applicable. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be compelled to register the decree within the stipulated time, and the respondent’s refusal based on delay was unjustified.
Holding and Implications
The Court quashed the impugned check slip dated 31.12.2021 issued by the respondent refusing registration of the judgment and decrees. It directed the petitioner to re-present the judgment and decrees dated 05.01.2008 and 22.10.2009 for registration, and upon receipt, the respondent must register and release the documents forthwith. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
The decision directly affects the parties by allowing registration of the decrees despite the delay and does not establish any new precedent beyond the application of existing statutory provisions regarding the registration of court decrees.
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order made in Check Slip dated 31.12.2021 in RFL/Bhavani/50/2021 by the respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the judgment and decrees dated 05.01.2008, 22.10.2009 made in O.S.No.198 of 2007 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani.
2. Heard Mr.N.S.Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3. The petitioner's father purchased the subject property and he died intestate on 16.11.2006 leaving behind the petitioner and other family members as his legal heirs. Since, the petitioner was denied his share of his father's property he filed a suit in O.S.No.198 of 2007 for partition. The said suit was decreed as prayed for by the preliminary Judgment and Decree, dated 05.01.2008. The petitioner also filed an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis application for final decree in I.A.No.932 of 2008 in O.S.No.198 of 2007. Accordingly, the suit property was divided by metes and bounds and final decree was passed on 22.10.2009.
4. However, due to the petitioner's ignorance, the said decree was not presented for registration immediately after obtaining the certified copy of the final decree. The petitioner after obtaining the certified copy of the Judgment and Decrees, presented for registration only on 31.12.2021. However, the respondent refused to register the same by the impugned check slip, dated 31.12.2021 for the reason that the Judgment and Decrees were presented for registration after a period of four months from the date of the decrees.
5. It is a well settled law that the proviso under Section 23 of the Registration Act is only directory in nature and not mandatory in respect of the decree passed by the Court. The decree passed by the Civil Court is not compulsorily registrable document. Under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act deals with the compulsory registration of documents. Section 17(2) of the Registration Act is an exception to Section 17(1) of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the Registration Act. Section 18 of the Registration Act, refers to documents for which registration is optional. Therefore, the decree or an order passed by the Civil Court will not fall under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act.
6. Therefore, a party cannot be compelled to get the document registered when there is no obligation cast upon the party to register the same. Thus, the limitation prescribed for presentation of document under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, is not applicable to Judgment and Decree presented for registration.
7. In view of the above, the impugned check slip, dated 31.12.2021 cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned check slip, dated 31.12.2021, in RFL/Bhavani/50/2021 by the respondent is hereby quashed.
8. The petitioner is directed to re-present the Judgment and Decrees passed in O.S.No.198 of 2007 dated 05.01.2008 and 22.10.2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani and on receipt https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of the same, the respondent is directed to register and release the same forthwith.
9. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27.01.2022 Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order The Sub Registrar, Bhavani SRO, Erode District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. 27.01.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Alert