The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Shamim Ahmed, has ruled that the time limit prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, does not apply to the registration of a sale certificate issued by a Civil Court. The Court quashed a Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register such a document on the grounds of delay, directing the authority to proceed with the registration.
Background of the Case
The case was brought before the High Court by Mr. A. Sheir Mohammed, the petitioner, who had purchased a property in a court-supervised auction. The property, located in Dindigul Taluk, was auctioned on November 29, 2023, in Execution Petition No. 128/2014 in O.S. No. 392/2013. The petitioner was the successful bidder, acquiring the property for Rs. 7,53,000.
Following the purchase, the auction was confirmed by the Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul, on February 13, 2024, and a Sale Certificate was issued. The petitioner subsequently took delivery of the property on March 17, 2025.
On April 8, 2025, the petitioner presented the Sale Certificate to the No. 2 Joint Sub-Registrar, Dindigul (the 2nd Respondent), for registration. However, on April 29, 2025, the document was returned with a “Refusal Check Slip,” citing that it was presented for registration belatedly. Aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by counsel Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan, argued that the Registration Act, 1908, and its associated rules do not prescribe any time limit for the registration of court orders, decrees, or sale certificates. It was contended that the Sub-Registrar’s action was “arbitrary, unreasonable, and without any legal basis.” The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on several previous judgments of the High Court, including the decision in Mani @ Devarasu vs. The District Registrar, which consistently held that the limitation period under Section 23 of the Act is not applicable to court decrees.
The respondents, represented by Additional Government Pleader Mr. D. Sachi Kumar, defended the refusal, stating that the Sale Certificate was rejected under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, which prescribes a four-month period for presenting documents for registration.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Shamim Ahmed, after considering the arguments and perusing the record, embarked on a detailed analysis of the legal position. The Court noted that the central issue was whether the limitation period prescribed in Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, applies to a Sale Certificate issued by a court.
The judgment observed that while Section 23 stipulates a four-month period for presenting documents, a consistent line of judicial pronouncements has clarified that this provision does not apply rigidly to court decrees. The Court emphasized that the issue is “no longer res integra.”
The Court cited several key precedents:
- S.Sarvothaman Vs. Sub Registrar (2019): A Division Bench of the Court held that a court decree is not compulsorily registrable and the option lies with the party. Therefore, “the limitation prescribed under the Act would not stand attracted.”
- A.K. Gnanasankar Vs Joint-II Sub-Registrar, Cuddalore (2007): This decision established that a decree is a “permanent record of the court and to register the same, no limitation is prescribed.”
- Inspector General of Registration Circular (27.02.2023): The Court also took note of a circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, following judicial directives, which clarified to all registering authorities that court decrees should be accepted for registration even after the four-month period.
The Court explained the legal distinction under the Act, stating, “Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with documents for which registration is compulsory. However, Section 17(2) provides exceptions… thereby excluding certain documents, including some court decrees, from the requirement of compulsory registration.”
Based on this settled legal principle, the Court concluded that a decree passed by a Civil Court is not a compulsorily registrable document. Justice Ahmed stated, “Thus, it is now well settled in law that a decree passed by a Civil Court can be registered upon the presentation of certified copies of the judgment and decree before the Sub-Registrar. The limitation period prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, is not applicable to such cases.”
Final Decision
Finding the Sub-Registrar’s reasons for refusal to be “wholly untenable in law,” the High Court allowed the writ petition.
The Court issued the following orders:
- The impugned Refusal Check Slip dated April 29, 2025, issued by the No. 2 Joint Sub-Registrar, Dindigul, was quashed.
- The respondents were directed to register the Sale Certificate dated February 13, 2024, upon payment of the appropriate stamp duty as per G.O.(Ms) No. 100, dated July 16, 2025.
- The registration process is to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
