1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 20.06.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

W.P.(MD)No.13896 of 2019

K.Krishnan ...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Inspector General of Registration,

No.100, Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai-600028/

2.The Joint Sub Registrar No.1,

Madurai North,
Integrated Complex of Registration Department,
TNAU Nagar,
Rajakampeeram, Y.Othakadai,
Madurai-625 107. ...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second
respondent to register the certified copy of the decree dated
04.07.2018 passed in the suit in O.S.No.686 of 2004 on the file of
the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk on payment of
registration charges alone without insisting for payment of any
stamp duty and without insisting on the period of limitation under
Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam
For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan
Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
 2

ORDER

The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus,

directing the second respondent to register the certified copy of the

decree dated 04.07.2018 passed in the suit in O.S.No.686 of 2004

on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk on payment

of registration charges alone without insisting for payment of any

stamp duty and without insisting on the period of limitation under

Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

2.Heard Ms.T.R.Jeyapalam, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for the respondents.

3.With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is disposed

of at the admission stage itself.

4.The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner's

property in Resurvey No.1/2 situated in Ramankulam Village,

Avaniyapuram Firka, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District, to the

extent of 8 acres 73 cents, absolutely belongs to him and in respect

of which, since there has been some dispute, the petitioner along

with other co-owners filed a suit in O.S.No.686 of 2004 against

http://www.judis.nic.insome third parties and the suit has ultimately been decreed by the
 3

competent civil Court on 04.07.2018 declaring that the petitioner

and other co-owners are the owners of the subject property. In

that circumstances, all that the petitioner wants to register the

copy of the decree passed by the civil Court in O.S.No.686 of 2004,

by the Registrar ie., the second respondent herein and accordingly,

he made a request to the second respondent to register the decree.

However, the same has been refused by the respondent, especially,

the second respondent on the ground that, the decree has not been

submitted for registration within the time of limitation stipulated

under Section 23 of the Registration Act and also the necessary

fee/stamp duty has not been paid. Only in that circumstances, the

petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

5.Heard Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, who submits that, since the limitation of four months

prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”) is not mandatory and it is only directory,

moreover, the same can very well be condoned in cases, where

Court decrees and orders were sought to be registered. In support

of this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied

upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2019) 3

MLJ 517 in the matter of S.Sarvothaman Vs. Sub-Registrar,

Oulgaret, Pondicherry.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 4

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied

upon the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration,

Chennai, ie., the first respondent herein, in Circular No.

56710/C2/2001 dated 26.10.2002.

7.By relying upon this circular, the learned counsel submitted

that, if at all any charge to be made for registering the Court

decree and order, only the registration charge has to be collected

and no other stamp duty can be demanded. Therefore, the learned

counsel would submit that, in view of the said law that have been

settled under Section 23 of the Act and also on the basis of the

circular referred to above dated 26.10.2002, the second

respondent can not refuse to register the decree as desired by the

petitioner and therefore, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this

Court by issuing a mandamus as prayed for.

8.Heard Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate

appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, no doubt

under Section 23 of the Act, limitation of four months time has

been prescribed. But, at the same time, insofar as the decree and

order is concerned, proviso to Section 23 of the Act makes it clear

that, the four months limitation shall start from the date the order

of decree if is appealable becomes final. Therefore, in case of the

http://www.judis.nic.indecree and order, under proviso to Section 23 of the Act, there is

 5

limitation. The learned Government Advocate would further submit

that, insofar as the stamp duty is concerned, for the purpose of

registering the Court decree or order, party need not pay the

stamp duty advalorem But, at the same time, registration charges

for the value of the entire suit as per decree has to be paid and this

has been specifically mentioned at clause 4 of the said circular of

the first respondent dated 26.10.2002 and therefore, the learned

Government Advocate would submit that, subject to the limitation

under Section 23 of the Act and the payment of one percent

registration charges, certainly, the Court decree sought to be

registered by the petitioner, can be considered and registered.

9.I have considered the said submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

10.There is no dispute with regard to the civil Court decree,

which declared the title/right of the parties, ie., the petitioner and

others in respect of the subject land and the civil Court decree has

also been sought to be registered by the second respondent, for

which, the petitioner approached the second respondent.

11.As far as the first reason for alleged refusal of

registration is concerned, to have a clarification, Section 23 of the

http://www.judis.nic.inAct is extracted hereunder, which reads thus:-

 6

“Subject to the provisions contained in Sections

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.”

12.By relying upon the proviso to Section 23 of the Act, the

learned Government Advocate submits that, the limitation has been

prescribed for the registration of Court decree and orders also. In

this context, some light has been thrown by this Court through the

Division Bench judgment cited supra in the matter of Sanbadevan

Vs. Sub Registrar, where the Division Bench has decided the

following question:-

“13.As pointed out by us earlier, we need to first

address the legal issue, which arises for consideration as
to whether at all the law of limitation as prescribed
under Section 23 of the Act would apply to a Court
decree.”

13.After having relied upon the decision in Padala

Satyanarayana Murthy V.Padala Gangamma(AIR 1959 AP

626), the Division Bench has held as follows:-

http://www.judis.nic.in
 7

“21.By applying the decision in the case Padala

Satyanarayana Murthy V.Padala Gangamma (supra) to
the facts of the case, the only conclusion that could be
arrived at is that a Court decree is not compulsorily
registrable and that the option lies with the party. In
such circumstances, the law laid down by this Court
clearly states that the limitation prescribed under the
Act would not stand attracted.”

14.Therefore, it has been made clear by the said Division

Bench judgment that, the limitation prescribed under the Act ie.,

under the proviso to Section 23 of the Act cannot stand attracted,

insofar as the limitation is concerned for registration of Court

decree, since it is not compulsorily registrable document. In other

words, as any other document, which are to be registered

compulsorily under the Registration Act, the Court decree and

orders need not be registered compulsorily. Therefore, it is only

optional, by exercising such option, if the parties desire to register

any decree or order of the Court, the same can be treated only as

an optional registration, for which, the limitation prescribed under

Section 23 of the Act cannot be strictly construed as a mandatory

requirement. Therefore, it can only be treated as directory and

therefore, the mandatory requirement of registration of document

within four months as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act

cannot be put against any party, who wants to register the Court
http://www.judis.nic.in
decree or order.
 8

15.Therefore, the first reason claimed to have been stated for

not registering the petitioner's decree is unsustainable.

16.Insofar as the second reason of making the payment of the

stamp duty or registration charge is concerned, it is the stand of

the Government Advocate that, no doubt insofar as the registering

the Court decree or order is concerned, party need not pay stamp

duty advalorem, but, for registration, the parties will have to pay

the registration charges applicable to the property concerned

covered under the Court decree or order and this has also been

reiterated in the said circular issued by the first respondent dated

26.10.2002.

17.In order to appreciate the same, the relevant portion of

the said circular dated 26.10.2002 is hereby extracted:-

“4.The registration fee shall be levied only on the

total value of the suit and not on the value of the
property as per the guidelines or on separated shares
as the document is only a copy of decree and not a
partition.”

18.The very same circular has also been heavily relied upon

by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and he would

submit that, the prayer sought for in this writ petition is only to

give a mandamus by way of direction to the registering authority to

http://www.judis.nic.in
 9

register the Court decree, after collecting necessary registration

charges. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner also agreed that, the petitioner has to pay necessary

registration charges as contemplated under Clause 4 of the circular

dated 26.10.2002 extracted herein above.

19.Therefore, insofar as the second issue is concerned, it is

easily resolved, as the petitioner has also agreed upon the legal

position and he is ready and willing to pay the registration charges.

20.Therefore, the two reasons, since have been cleared as

discussed above, there can be no further impediment for the

registering authority to register the Court decree as desired by the

writ petitioner.

21.In the result, this Writ Petition is ordered with the

following directions:-

“that the second respondent/registering authority

is directed to register the civil Court decree in O.S.No.
686 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif,
Madurai Taluk at Madurai by judgment and decree dated
04.07.2018 without insisting any limitation under Section
23 of the Registration Act, however, by collecting the
necessary registration charges for the value of the suit
covered under the decree, but not as per the guideline
value of the property. The needful as indicated above
shall be completed within a period of four weeks
http://www.judis.nic.in
 10

from the date of receipt of the document as well as the

registration charges from the petitioner. Hence, it is
open to the petitioner to resubmit the document ie., civil
Court decree with necessary registration charges and
any other relevant documents required by the second
respondent, immediately.

The first respondent i.e., the Inspector General of

Registration shall issue necessary clarification to
Circular dated 26.10.2002, where the first respondent
shall specify that on the two reasons cited in this case no
Court decree or order shall be refused/rejected by the
registering authority and the charges to be levied as
registration charges shall only be for the value of the suit
and not the guideline value of the property concerned
and such circular shall be issued to all Registrars'/ Sub
Registrars' offices throughout the State.”

No costs.

20.06.2019

Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No

rmk

http://www.judis.nic.in
 11

To

1.The Inspector General of Registration,

No.100, Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai-600028/

2.The Joint Sub Registrar No.1,

Madurai North,
Integrated Complex of Registration Department,
TNAU Nagar,
Rajakampeeram, Y.Othakadai,
Madurai-625 107.

http://www.judis.nic.in
 12

R.SURESH KUMAR ,J.

rmk

Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.13896 of 2019

20.06.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in