[2/28, 20:39] sekarreporter1: Registration of Court Decree, Batch Judgment. The State and Registration department was led by Silambanan, Addl Advocate General and Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Govt Pleader. [2/28, 20:39] sekarreporter1 full order. THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Writ Petition Nos.33616, 33927, 33964, 34144, 34174, 34252, 34775,

[2/28, 20:39] sekarreporter1: Registration of Court Decree, Batch Judgment. The State and Registration department was led by Silambanan, Addl Advocate General and Yogesh Kannadasan, Special Govt Pleader.
[2/28, 20:39] sekarreporter1: 💐

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.02.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.33616, 33927, 33964, 34144, 34174, 34252, 34775,
34946, 35094, 35096 and 35230 of 2022 and W.P.Nos.91, 478, 678,
1982, 3177, 4001, 2189, 2613, 3679, 3702, 5365 and 5679 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.616, 5389, 2818 and 3795 of 2023
W.P.No.33616 of 2023
Sathiyamoorthy
The Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar Office
Pochampalli -Vs- …. Petitioner
Krishnagiri District. …. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 26.04.2022 made in refusal check slip reference No.Ref. No.RFL / Pochampalli / 13 / 2022 refusing to register the court Decree in O.S No. 99/ 2011 dated 06.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate court krishnagiri Krishnagiri District vide Temporary Registration No. TP / 118192723 / 2022 dated 26.04.2022 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the said decree and to return the documents on its registration forthwith.
In W.P.No.33616 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Silambanan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
C O M M O N O R D E R
Since the issue raised in these writ petitions is common, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, all these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Invariably in all these cases, the respective prayer sought for by the petitioners is that, challenging the stand taken by the registering authority refusing to register the court decrees / orders / judgments, which were produced for registration before the concerned registering authority within the meaning of Section 23 of the Registration Act.
3. Mainly two reasons were adduced by the registering authorities for such refusal; first reason is that, under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 under the heading ‘Time for presenting documents’ since a limitation has been prescribed under the proviso to Section 23, under which four months time has been granted from the date of the court decrees / orders / judgments, within which, if the same are produced / presented for registration, that can be registered by the registering authorities, and beyond which time they cannot register the same.
4. Since that being the main reason which caused for such rejection made in number of cases, in earlier occasions also, that issue had come up before this Court and the earliest order was passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019 dated 20.06.2019 (K.Krishnan -Vs- Inspector General of Registration and Another) followed by number of judgments.
5. In those judgments, this Court had clarified the position that the limitation of four months prescribed under the proviso of Section 23 of the Act should not stand in the way to register the Court decrees / judgments / orders, as the Court decrees and orders are eternal, unless it is varied, modified or set aside by the higher judicial forum. Therefore, the four months limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 23 is an artificial embargo that has been put against the declaration made by the Civil Court decree as well as the judgments and orders passed by the other Courts including the High Courts. Hence, such clarification has been made in those orders referred to above many times by this Court.
6. Despite that, the registering authorities at various places in the State of Tamil Nadu, under the Inspector General of Registration, time and again have taken the very same stand and have refused to register the documents of those who presented such judgment and decree passed by the Court of law to get it registered after four months period from the date of the order / judgment / decree.
7. One such case when came up for hearing in W.P.No.33186 of 2022 before this Court and by order on 09.12.2022, the following direction had been given.
“ 4. The issue raised in this writ petition ie., limitation shall not stand in the way for registering the civil court decree has already been settled by this Court in number of cases.
Illustratively, the following cases can be pressed into service.
●W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019 dated 20.06.2019
(K.Krishnan -Vs- Inspector General of Registration and
Another)
●W.P.No.4591 of 2020 etc., batch of cases dated 29.07.2021 (Mani alias Devarasu -Vs- District Registrar and Another)
5. Despite repeated orders have been passed by this Court in most of the cases of this nature, the Sub Registrars are again taking the very same stand refusing to register the civil court decree and judgment citing limitation point.
6. A time has come for this Court to issue a direction to the Inspector General of Registration to issue necessary circular to that effect to all the Registrars concerned throughout the State to strictly implement the orders passed by this Court especially the orders passed by this Court referred to above, where it has been held that the limitation would not stand in the way to register the civil court decree and judgment. It is also to be clarified that insofar as the registration fee is concerned, the value of the suit alone should be taken into account and not the guideline value or the market value of the property concerned. Despite this clarification since these kind of refusal orders are made by the Sub Registrars concerned, this Court is inclined to pass the following order in this writ petition.
●That the impugned order dated 03.10.2022 is hereby set aside.
● That there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to register the civil court decree and judgment presented by the petitioner after collecting the necessary registration fee only by calculating the value of the suit filed by the parties out of which the civil court decree and judgment has come and not insisting upon the registration fee as per the value of the property. Secondly, without insisting any limitation such registration shall be undertaken by the 2nd respondent.
● Apart from the aforesaid, this Court hereby directs the
Inspector General of Registration, Government of
Tamil Nadu to issue necessary circular to all the Registrars throughout the State to strictly follow the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019 and W.P.No.4591 of 2020 etc., batch of cases referred herein above.
● It is made clear that, since many number of cases have come to the Court and it is almost become an everyday affair on the same issue despite these orders having been passed by this Court, the circular as indicated above shall be issued by the Inspector General of Registration immediately with a rider that, despite the circular being issued by the Inspector General of Registration if it is violated by any of the registering authority, that would be viewed seriously and in that case, action would be initiated against the said registering authority within the meaning of Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908 and those registering authorities shall be held responsible for such dereliction.
7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.”
8. Therefore, when a set of directions were given by this Court in the afore stated order, which is a recent one, this Court also directed the Inspector General of Registration to issue a circular to all the registering authorities to strictly follow the stand taken by this Court and the law declared in those orders especially in the context of Section 23 of the Registration Act, where, without insisting upon the four months limitation point as provided under the proviso to the said Section, those judgments / orders / decrees shall be directed to be registered.
9. Despite the said orders having been passed, the afore stated stand taken by the registering authority was continuing unabated with many such cases again have come up before this Court and that is how this batch of cases have come up for hearing, where, exactly the same stand which ought not to have been taken by the registering authorities in fact had been taken.
10. Therefore, this Court felt that, entertaining each and every case ie.,writ petitions and giving directions by way of Mandamus then and there as a routine process would unnecessarily drive the litigants to come before this Court and making it a point that, unless this Court gives such directions that every court decree /order / judgment being presented before the registering authorities for getting registered beyond the four months period is to be registered, the court decrees and orders would not be registered and that would become a routine affair, for which the precious time of the Judiciary would unnecessarily get wasted.
11. Only in these circumstances, this Court wanted to give a quietus to the issue on a permanent basis. Therefore, this Court by order dated 10.02.2023, after hearing Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents, had passed the following order.
“ 5. Pursuant to this order passed by this Court, according to the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, the I.G.of Registration has sent a letter in detail to the Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Tamil Nadu in Lr.No.34930/C1/2019 dated
27.12.2022. In the said communication dated 27.12.2022, the I.G of Registration inter alia had stated that, by a recent order that is referred herein above, the Court directed the concerned registering authority to register the Civil Court decree passed in O.S.No.407 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court-II, without insisting the period of limitation under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908. The letter further states that, apart from the said direction, the High Court has directed the I.G.of Registration to issue necessary circular to all the Registrars throughout the State to strictly follow the judgment of the Court in W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019 dated 20.06.2019 and in W.P.No.4591 of 2020 dated 29.07.2021.
6. By making these references, the I.G.of Registration also has forwarded a draft circular to be issued, to the Government, for its approval. A copy of the draft circular also has been placed before this Court. Relying upon the same, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that, under Section 69(j) of the Registration Act, the Inspector General of Registration is empowered to issue such circulars generally regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub-Registrars. He also relied upon sub-section (2) of Section 69, wherein it is stated that, the rules so made shall be submitted to the State Government for approval, and, after they have been approved, they shall be published in the Official Gazette, and on publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
7. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that, as per Section 69(2) of the Act, whatever the circular to be issued within the meaning of Section 69(1) of the Act has to be necessarily approved by the State Government before it is gazetted, then only it will have the effect as if it is enacted in this Act ie., the Registration Act, 1908. Only for the aforesaid purpose as provided under the Statute to get approval from the Government along with the letter dated 27.12.2022, the draft circular to be issued by the I.G.of Registration as directed by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2022 as referred to above has been forwarded to the Government and therefore the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that, maximum of two weeks time would be required for the Government to examine the issue and give its nod. Therefore, for the purpose of publishing in the Gazette, he makes a plea that two weeks time may be given to the Government for approving the draft circular sent by the I.G of Registration as stated supra.
I have considered the developments taken place and the detailed submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
8. Since it became necessitated to get a formal approval from the Government for publishing in the Gazette any circular to be issued under Section 69(1) of the Registration Act, the aforesaid procedure has to be followed. Therefore, the said time frame of two weeks sought for by the Additional Advocate General is to be granted.
9. It is also to be noted that, once such a circular as has been stated in the draft circular dated 27.12.2022 is issued as desired by the I.G of Registration, of course pursuant to the orders passed by this Court referred to above, certainly the issues raised in this batch of cases as well as any future cases would be resolved at once. Therefore, many number of or even hundreds of unwarranted litigations can be avoided.
10. Therefore, this Court feels that, such two weeks time can be granted to the State Government with a rider that, without taking any further extension of time, the State Government would bestow its attention and do the needful for giving such approval of the draft circular sent by the I.G of Registration as referred to above so that it can be published in the Gazette immediately.
11. For the aforesaid purpose, two weeks time is granted and these cases can be called for further hearing on 27.02.2023 at 2.15 p.m.”
12. Pursuant to all these developments which had taken place from 2019 till date, today when this batch of cases are taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that, as stated before this Court during the earlier hearing, the draft circular to be issued by the Inspector General of Registration as directed by this Court since had already been sent to the Government, it has been now approved by the Government through Letter No.38490910/J2/2022-2 dated
24.02.2023 with the following words.
“ I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to enclose the approved draft circular in e/f/vz;.34930-C1-2022 to be issued by the Inspector General of Registration to all the registering officers in Tamil Nadu relating to registration of Court decrees based on the directions of the High Court of Madras in its order in W.P.No.33186/2022 dated 09.12.2022 as required in your letter cited.
Yours faithfully,
for Secretary to Government”
13. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that, pursuant to the said approval given by the State Government through their letter dated 24.02.2023, the Inspector General of Registration had issued the circular in Na.Ka.No.34930/C1/2019 dated 27.02.2023 and annexing the said circular, a letter also had been written by the Inspector General of Registration in the same reference No.34930/C1/2019 dated 27.02.2023.
14. Relying upon these communications, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that, what is directed by this Court in the orders referred to above, the Inspector General of Registration thus had issued the circular dated 27.02.2023 after getting the necessary approval in this regard under Section 69(2) of the Act from the State Government, where, the main grievances that were espoused by the petitioners’ side that, on two grounds since many times this kind of Court decrees / judgments / orders were refused for registration, those two main grounds / grievances of the petitioners side have been redressed. The first grievance is that, the limitation of four months period under proviso to Section 23 of the Act and the second one is insisting upon the registration fee ad valorem for the value of the property covered under the Court decree at the time of registration.
15. Those two grievances since have been redressed through the circular dated 27.02.2023, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that, the petitioners may not have any further grievance and the said circular would be sent to all the registering authorities within a day or two, and on receipt of the same those registering authorities would scrupulously follow and act upon the directions given in the said circular.
16. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners side also having taken note of these developments especially the contents of the circular dated 27.02.2023, have expressed their satisfaction that, at least now the Government, through the Registration Department has come forward to clarify this position to register the Court decree / judgment / order without insisting upon the four months limitation period (or) without insisting the registration fee for the value of the property covered under the Court decree / judgment / order at the time of registration.
17. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties especially the submissions made by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
18. In the circular dated 27.02.2023, among other things the Inspector
General of Registration has stated the following.
“ 5/ ,jdogg;ilapYk; gjpt[ rl;lk; 1908. gphpt[ 23d; mog;gilapYk; muR TLjy; jiyik tHf;Fiu”h; mth;fspd; rl;lf; fUj;Jiu nfhhpg; bgwgg;l;Ls;sJ/ ,jdpy; rl;l jpUj;jk; bfhz;L tUtjw;F muRf;F fUj;JU mDg;gg;gl;L murpd; eltof;fiapy; ,Ue;J tUfpwJ/
6/ ,ee;piyapy;/ ghh;it 5y; Fwpgg;pLk; cah; ePjkd;wj;jpd; jPh;ghizapy;. nkny Rl;of;fhl;lg;gl;l ePjpg;nguhiz kDf;fspd; kPjhd jhPg;ghizfspd;; mog;gilapy; bray;gLtjw;F gjpt[ mYtyh;fSf;F Rw;wwpf;if gpwg;gpfF;khW Mizaplg;glLs;ssJ/
7/ ghh;it 6-y; fz;l jhP;gg;hizapy; 107 mapl;l brhj;Jf;fs; br”;rp tl;lk;. kU:h; fpuhkk;. fh”;rpg[uk; khtl;lk; mk;ikag;ggd; ey;Y}h;. ntlg;ghisak; fpuhk’;fspYk;. jpz;otdk; tl;lk;. kapyk;. fs;sbfhsj;J}h;. mtug;ghf;fk;. brd;oak;ghf;fk;. bjd; Myk;ghf;fk; fpuhk’;fspYk; brd;id khtl;lk; gs;spf;fuiz. khlk;ghf;fk; fpuhk’;fspYk; tpGg;g[uk; khtl;lk; fpspaD}h; fpuhkj;jpYk; cs;sJ/ ,jpy;. tlgHdp KUfd; nfhtpYf;F brhe;jkhd 9 Vf;fh; 86 brd;l; epyKk; gy muR epy’;fSk; ml’;Fk;/ ,e;j ePjpkd;w juP;gg;hiz efy; K:yk; muR kw;Wk; nfhapy; epy’;fspd; kPJ chpik Vw;gLj;jg;gl;l tpguk; bjspthfpwJ/ ,J nghd;w gjpt[r; rl;lk; 1908. gpupt[?22?A?d; fPH;tUk; ,d’;fspy; vt;thW bray;gl ntz;Lk; vdg;ija[k; bjspt[gLj;j ntz;o cs;sJ/
8/ ghh;it 7 y; fz;l muR fojj;jpy; ghu;it 5y; fz;l khz;g[kpF cau;ePjpkd;w Mizapd;go cupa Rw;wwpf;if btspapl Miz gpwg;gpf;fgg;l;Ls;sJ/
9/ mjdog;gilapy;. nkny tptupf;fg;gl;l ghu;it 3.4?y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; jPug;;ghizfspy;
Twgg;l;lthW tHf;fpyhd cupikapay; ePjpkd;w’;fshy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk; jPug;;g[iufis gjpt[ rl;lk; 1908. gpupt[
23?d; fPH; tFjJ;iuf;fg;gll; ehd;F khj’;fs; fhyf;bfL Koe;J jhf;fy; bra;ag;goDk; gjptpw;F Vw;wpl ,jd; K:yk; mwpt[iu tH’;fg;gLfpwJ/ bjhlu;gi[la cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; jPu;gg;hizfs;. ,jDld; cupa eltof;iff;fhf mDg;gg;gLfpd;wd/ nkYk;. jPug;;ghiz efy; gjpt[ bra;tjpy; fPH;fzl; bewpKiwfs ;tFj;jspf;fg;gLfpd;wd/
a) ePjpkd;w jPu;gg;hiz efy; gjpt[f;F jhf;fy; bra;ag;gLk;nghJ me;j jPu;gg;hiz cupa ePjpkd;wj;jhy; tH’;fg;gl;Ls;sjh vdg;ij ,izajsj;jpd; tHp rupghh;j;J rupahf ,Ug;gpd; kl;Lk; gjpt[ bra;a bjuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
b) ,iza jsj;jpy; cz;ikj;jd;ik Fwpj;J rupghh;f;f ,ayhj giHa tHf;Ffs; Fwpj;j ePjpkd;w jPu;ghiz efy; gjpt[f;Ftupd; mjid epYit itj;J mjd; cz;ikj;jd;ikia cupa ePjpkd;wj;jpy; nfhupg;bgw;W mjd; gpd;ng gjpt[ bra;a ntz;Lk;/
c) ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,Ue;J bgw;w mry; jPu;gg;hizapd; rhd;wpl;l efiy kl;Lnk gjpt[ bra;a ntz;Lk;/ mjd; Xerox Copy nghd;wtw;iw gjpt[ bra;af; TlhJ/
d) ePjpkd;w jPu;gg;hiz efy; gjpt[ bra;tjw;F Kd; thjp my;yJ vjpu;thjpf;F brhj;jpd; kPJ cupika[s;sjw;fhd tpguk; mry; Mtzk;. tpy;y’;fr;rhd;W. gl;lh K:yk; mwpe;j gpd;ng gjpt[ bra;a ntz;Lk;/ thjp my;yJ gpujpthjp brhj;jpd; kPJ cupikapy;yhjtuhf ,Ug;gpd; mjid vf;fhuzk; bfhz;Lk; gjpt[ bra;af;TlhJ/
e) ePjpkd;w jPh;gg;hiz efypd; kPJ nky;KiwaPL bra;ag;gl;L nky;KiwaPl;oy; jPhg;;gi[ u gfug;gl;L ,Ug;gpd; fPHik ePjpkd;w jPhgg;hizapd; efiy gjpt[ bra;af;TlhJ vdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;LfpwJ/
f) Stay Order, ex-parte order nghd;witfis ghh;it 2y; fz;l cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpd; jPhg;;ghizapy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sthW gjpt[ bra;af;TlhJ vdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
g) ePjpkd;w jhP;gg;hizapy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s brhj;Jf;fs; muR epyk;. cs;shl;rp mikg;g[fspd; epyk;. ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw epyk;. tf;g; thhpa epyk;. g{jhd; epyk;. nghd;witahf ,Ug;gpd; mtw;iw gjpt[ bra;af;TlhJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
h) ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ,Ue;J bgwg;gLk; rhd;wpl;l jPh;gg;hiz efypy; bjhptpf;fgg;Lk; brhj;J tpguj;jpy; gjpt[r; rl;lk; gphpt[ 21-f;F cl;gl;lthW brhj;Jf;ffis milahsk; fhzj;jf;fthW fpuhkk;. rh;nt vz;fs; kw;Wk; tp!;jPuzk; cs;spl;l cupa tpgu’;fs; bjhptpf;fl;gltpy;iy vd;whnyh my;yJ brhj;J tpguj;jpy; fz;l fpuhkk;. rh;nt vz; kw;Wk; tp!;jPuzk; Mfpatw;wpy; gpiH ,Ue;njhnyh gjpt[ mYtyh; mr;rhd;wpl;l jPh;gg;hiz efypid gjpt[ bra;ahky; rk;ke;jg;gl;ll ePjpkd;wj;jpy; KiwaPl;L jPhgg;hizapy; fz;l brhj;J tpguj;jpy; chpa jpUj;j’;fs; nkw;bfhz;L jpUj;jg;gl;l rhd;wpl;l jPh;ghizapid gjpt[f;F jhf;fy; bra;jpl bjhptpj;J MtzjhuUf;F kWgg;[ rPl;L mspj;jpl ntz;Lk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
10. nkYk;. ,ee;Pjpkd;wj;jpd; Mizfis gjpt[ bra;a[k; epfH;tpy; Kj;jpiujPh;it kw;Wk; gjpt[f;fl;lzk; tr{ypgg;J Fwpj;J ghh;it 1-y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ,t;tYtyf Rw;wwpf;ifapd;go bjhlh;eJ; bray;glt[k; nfhugg;LfpwJ/ ,jpy;
Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sthWk; ghh;it 5y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ePjpkd;w
Mizapy; bjhptpj;jthWk; jPh;gg;hiz efypy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ‘suit value’ f;F kl;Lnk 1% gjpt[f;fl;lzk; tR{ypf;fgg;l ntz;Lk; vdt[k; rei;j tHpfhl;o kjpg;g[fspd; mog;gilapy; gjpt[f;fl;lzk; typa[Wj;jgg;lyhfhJ vdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/
11. nkYk;. nkny bjhptpf;fg;gl;l mwpt[Wj;jy;fspd;go eilKiwwgg;Lj;jlt[k; bghJ kf;fSf;F vt;tpj ,ila{Wkpd;wp Mtzg;gjpt[ nkw;bfhs;SkhWk; midj;J gjpt[ mYtyh;fSf;Fk; ,jd; K:yk; mwp[tiu tH’;fg;gLfpwJ/
12/ ,r;Rw;wwpf;ifapd; tutpid midj;J rhh;gjpthsh;fSk; jk; jk; khtl;lgjpthsh;fSf;F mDg;ggg;lntz;Lk; vdt[k; eph;thf khtl;l gjpthsh;fsplkpUe;J xgg;[jiy bgw;W nfhh;it bra;J bfhz;L mjd; bjhlhg;hd tpguj;jpid kl;Lk; mDg;gpLkhW Jiz gjpt[j;Jiw jiyth;fs;
nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/
xk;– 27/02/2023 gjpt[j;Jiw jiyth;
/ Mizapd;go /
xk;–
TLjy; gjpt[j;Jiw jiyth;
( Kj;jpiu kw;Wk; gjpt[ )
19. In the said circular, at Para 9 as extracted herein above, it has been made clear that, even after the four months limitation period, the Court decrees / judgments / orders if are presented for registration, that should be accepted and registered by the registering authorities and that position has been clarified.
20. Like that, in para 10 of the circular, it is further clarified that, only 1% (One percent) of the registration charge of the suit value alone would be insisted or collected for the purpose of registering the Court orders / decrees / judgments.
21. Therefore, the two major issues under which these litigations have come and some earlier litigations also have been decided by this Court since have been redressed by this clarificatory circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration under the powers vested in him under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, there could be no further impediment for the registering authorities to take up the Court decrees / judgments / orders presented by these respective petitioners for registration and to register the same if it is otherwise in order. Not only the case of the petitioners, but in future also, whenever such judgments / decrees / orders passed by the Courts of law are presented by the parties concerned for registration, the same yardstick should be adopted by the registering authorities by taking note of the import of the circular dated 27.02.2023. By thus, many prospective litigations on this point can be avoided.
22. Despite these two main grievances having been redressed by the issuance of the circular dated 27.02.2023, on going through the entire circular, I find that still some grey areas are available, but that is not the issue in this batch of cases. Therefore, this Court does not want to make any comment upon the other grey areas and in this regard, it is for the concerned authorities to redress it whenever it is required and it would be taken care of at an appropriate time in an appropriate proceedings.
23. By virtue of the aforesaid development, especially in view of the circular dated 27.02.2023, having taken note of the import of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of all these writ petitions with the following order.
(a)That the respective impugned orders in this batch of writ petitions are therefore set aside.
(b)As a sequel, the matters are remitted back to the respective respondents in this batch of writ petitions for reconsideration. While reconsidering the same, the earlier orders passed by this Court as well as this order, and the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration in Na.Ka.No.34930/C1/2019 dated 27.02.2023, especially based on Paras 9 and 10 shall be borne in mind and accordingly the needful shall be undertaken by the registering authorities to register the Court orders / decrees / judgments respectively in all these cases without any further delay at the outer time limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the documents are otherwise in order.
24. Before parting with these cases, this Court wants to make the following observations.
● Though repeated orders have been passed by this Court declaring the legal position vis-a-vis Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 as discussed herein above, where, without insisting upon the four months limitation provided, the Court orders / decrees / judgments were directed to be registered, the various registration authorities in the State of Tamil Nadu consistently took the same stand by insisting the limitation period because of the statutory provision viz., Section 23 and Section 25 of the Registration Act.
● Though such declaratory orders have been passed by this Court repeatedly exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, still if the Government Or the Registration Department wanted to assail those declaratory orders passed by this Court on various occasions exercising the writ jurisdiction, they could have very well agitated that issue by filing further appeals.
● However, instead of resorting to such a conservative method of litigation, which is being adopted for number of decades by the State, as a deviation, of course as a welcome deviation, the Tamil Nadu Registration Department has taken a conscious stand to implement the orders given by this Court by taking the approval from the Government of Tamil Nadu for the circular to be issued in this regard by the Inspector General of Registration, of course as suggested or directed by this Court. Accordingly, the approval also has been given by the State Government, pursuant to which the circular has been issued only today. As the cases were posted today, the Government had issued the circular in the morning and produced the same before this Court in the afternoon. That shows
the quick action taken on the part of the respondents not only to comply with the orders of this Court, but also to see that hassle free registration is undertaken insofar as the Court decrees / orders / judgments before the registering authorities, which would be highly beneficial to the society in general in the State of Tamil Nadu.
● This timely action taken on the part of the Registration Department and the State of Tamil Nadu deserves to be appreciated. The able assistance rendered by Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader also deserves to be appreciated.
25. Recording the same, all these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.02.2023
1/2
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking Order
KST
Note : Issue order copy tomorrow (28.02.2023)
To
To
The Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar Office
Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District.
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
KST
W.P.No. 33616 of 2022 etc., batch of cases
27.02.2023