High Court · 2025

W.P (MD).No.547 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 09.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P (MD).No.547 of 2025R.Karmegam ...PetitionerVs.The Sub-Registrar,Nilakottai,Dindigul District. ...RespondentPrayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip of the respondent in RFL/Nilakottai/179/2024 dated 26.12.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.217 of 2000, dated 25.07.2001, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nilakottai. For Petitioner : Mr.B.AzhageshFor Respondent : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government PleaderO R D E RThis writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip issued by the respondent, dated 26.12.2024, thereby refused to register the Court decree passed in O.S.No.217 of 2000, dated 25.07.2001 on the ground 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P (MD).No.547 of 2025that as per the decree, the petitioner do not derive any right over the subject property. Further, on perusal of the encumbrance in respect of the subject property reveals that it is stands in the name of the other persons. 2. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.4. The land comprised in S.No.399/1 situated at Mallanampatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk to an extent of 1 acre 9 cents belonged to one Subbiah Aasari. In order to assess the subject property there is existing road in the northern side of the subject property through cart track comprised in S.No.397 admeasuring 26 cents. After his demise, his legal heirs had sold the subject property in favour of one Ravindra Pandian and his wife Eswari Pandian by the registered sale deed dated 13.06.1994. Subsequently, they sold the subject property in favour of the petitioner's wife by the registered sale deed dated 26.11.1999. While being so, the third party had interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and as such, the petitioner and his wife filed a suit in O.S.No.217 of 2000 on the file of the Principal 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P (MD).No.547 of 2025District Munsif Court, Nilakottai. Pending suit, the issue in the suit was settled between the parties and accordingly, compromise decree was passed on 25.07.2001 and it was presented for registration on 26.12.2024 after a period of 23 years. It was refused to register by the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no limitation to register the Civil Court decree. The respondent stated the reason for refusal of registration that the Inspector General of Registration has passed the Circular dated 27.02.2023. Now, the said circular itself declared as null and void by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2174 of 2024 in the case of Joint Sub-Registrar-I vs. P.Vasantha Kumari. The Division Bench of this Court held that once a Civil Court passes a decree, be it exparte or otherwise, it is a valid decree until it is set aside. The power to set aside the decree, be it exparte or collusive or fraudulent is only vested in a competent Civil Court. To vest these powers with the Registering Officers will elevate them as extra constitutional authorities who have a right to determine the validity of a Civil Courts decree. Neither the constitutional scheme nor the legislative scheme permits such invasion into the powers of the Courts. If a decree of a Court is presented, a Registrar will have to register it without 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P (MD).No.547 of 2025launching upon any further enquiry. Therefore, the Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the direction contained in Clause-5 of the circular dated 27.02.2023. Thus, it is clear that the decree of the Civil Court cannot be refused to register by the registering authority on the ground of delay or it is an exparte or collusive decree or fraudulent one. 6. In the case on hand, the decree which was presented for registration granted in O.S.No.217 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nilakottai, dated 25.07.2001. The petitioner filed an injunction suit and while pending suit, the parties had entered into a compromise and accordingly, the compromise decree was passed by the trial Court. The relevant clause of the compromise decree is as follows:- “1.rHNt vz;.397-y; nkhj;jk; 26 nrd;l; epyj;jpy; Nky;Gwk; 13 nrd;l; epyKk;> mjpy; cs;s tz;bg;ghij mDgtKk; Mfpatw;iw 1tJ ghHl;bahHfs; kl;Lk; mDgtk; nra;J nfhs;s Ntz;baJ. Mjpy; 2tJ ghHl;bNah my;yJ mtiu NrHe;jtHfNsh vt;tifapYk; ,ila+W Mjpf;fk; nrYj;jf;$lhJ. 2.mJNghy; rHNt vz;.397y; kPjk; cs;s fPo;Gwk; 13 nrd;l; epyj;jpy; 2tJ ghHl;bahH uh[Nrfud; jdpj;J mile;J nfhz;L mjpy; mtH ,\;lg;gb mDgtk; nra;J nfhs;s Ntz;baJ 1tJ ghHl;bNah my;yJ mtuJ 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P (MD).No.547 of 2025Ml;fNsh 2tJ ghHl;bahUf;F vt;tpj ,ila+W Mjpf;fKk; nra;af;$lhJ vd;Wk; Ngrp KbT nra;J nryT njhifapid mtutHfNs Vw;Wf;nfhs;s Ntz;baJ vd;Wk; xg;Gf;nfhz;L ,e;j rkur Mtzk; nra;J nfhz;Nlhk;. 7. Though it is a compromise decree, it can be executable within a period of 12 years as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If it is a mandatory injunction, it has to be executed within a period of three years from the date of decree. The petitioner obtained a decree of injunction and it can be executed within a period of 12 years after having been failed to execute the same, after a period of 23 years, the petitioner presented the decree for registration in order to execute the decree by way of registration. 8. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. That apart, on verification of the encumbrance in respect of the subject property that as per the document No.2079/1985 the property stands in the name of one Kuttaiyan @ Pethen and others, the document No.2016/1995 stands in the name of one Baskaran, the document No.2622/2024 stands in the name of Manikandan and the document No.2716/2024 stands in the name of Arumurgam. Therefore, the respondent has rightly refused to register the same and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the respondent. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P (MD).No.547 of 20259. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Internet : YesIndex : Yes/No09.01.2025Speaking/Non Speaking orderamToThe Sub-Registrar,Nilakottai,Dindigul District. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P (MD).No.547 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.amW.P (MD).No.547 of 202509.01.20257/7