Limitation Prescribed U/S 23 Registration Act For Presenting Documents Not Attracted For Orders/ Decrees Passed By Courts: Madras High Court

The provision stipulates that 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.

A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has ruled that the Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register any order or decree only on the ground that the same has been presented beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 23 of the Act.

Arguments

The Petitioners in this case sought a direction to the Sub Registrar to register the decree passed by the competent Civil Court and not to reject the same on the ground of limitation.

Senior Government counsel Veerakathiravan, appearing on behalf of the Respondents urged the Court to refer the matter to a larger bench in view of conflicting judgments on this issue.

He referred to two Single Bench orders of the Court (in WP (MD) No. 13070/2009 dated March 23, 2007 and WP (MD) No. 5955/ 2014 dated July 27, 2014) and a Division Bench order (WA No. 2395/2003 dated July 27, 2016) where it was held that a decree should be presented within a period of four months from the date it was made ready under Section 23 of the Act.

He also cited WP (MD) Nos. 336/2019 dated February 7, 2019 where a Division Bench judgment of the High Court held that insofar as the Court decree is concerned, limitation prescribed under the Act will not get attracted.

He argued that it is clear from the above that there are two sets of judgments, which are contradictory to each other and therefore, there must be a clear pronouncement of law on the issue and hence, the issue requires consideration by a larger Bench.

Findings

The Single Bench observed that the first two orders presented by the Senior Government counsel have held that the decree cannot be entertained for registration beyond the period of limitation provided under the Act.

"These two orders were passed by learned single Judges of this Court," it noted.

The third order that was placed on record was passed by a Division Bench. The Court noted that a careful reading of that order shows that the Division Bench was merely referring to Section 23 of the Act and explaining as to how the four months period provided therein must be calculated.

"This order does not deal with the preposition as to whether a decree or an order can be registered even beyond the period of limitation provided under the Act," the Court observed.

Whereas, the subsequent Division Bench order dated February 7, 2019 held that a Court decree is not compulsorily registerable and that the option lies with the party.

In such circumstances, Justice Venkatesh held,

"the law laid down by this Court clearly states that the limitation prescribed under the Act would not stand attracted…This judgment has also been subsequently followed in the latest judgment by a Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.902 of 2021, dated 26.04.2021. Therefore, this ratio has been consistently followed till date."

The judge added,

"As a single Judge, I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench. Therefore, this Court does not find any requirement for referring the matter to a larger Bench in view of a clear statement of law consistently pronounced by two Division Benches."

The Court has also clarified that the registration fees should be levied only on the total value of the suit and not on the value of the property.

Case Title: M. Rajendran v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order