REGISTRATION OF DECREE

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

In THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, CHENNAI, THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, MADURAI AND THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MADURAI VERSUS M. MURUGAN AND S. SABEER HUSSAIN - 2023 (8) TMI 1223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , Mr. M. Murugan filed a money decree for a sum of Rs. 1.51 crores and interest @ 12% per annum on the said amount against one S. Sabeer Ussain.  The said amount was paid as advance under an unregistered sale agreement dated 18.01.2021.  A compromise was arrived at by which the defendant had agreed to receive the balance amount and execute a sale deed if he is successful in the litigation before the Revenue Authorities seeking patta.  The IV Additional District Judge, Madurai passed the decree in O.S. No. 357 of 2021, dated 05.01.2022.  The decree in effect constituted a substituted agreement of subject to certain conditions.  The said decree was presented before the Registration Department for registration which was refused.

Against the refusal order the writ petitioner filed a writ petition before High Court in W.P. (MD) No. 6962 of 2022.  The writ petition was resisted under the following three grounds-

• The decree relates to a property which belongs to the Government and the same cannot be registered under Section 22(2A) of the Registration Act, 1908. 
• Being a decree which affects immovable property it can be registered only with the jurisdictional Sub Registrar the place where the property is situated. 
• A litigation relating to grant of patta is pending and an order of stay has been granted.

The High Court allowed the writ petition in favor of the writ petitioner.   Being aggrieved against the order of High Court the Inspector General of Registration filed the present writ appeal before the High Court.

Before the High Court the appellant reiterated the submissions made before Single Judge.  In addition to the above the appellant submitted the following before the High Court-

• Even though the decree is only an agreement to convey, being a decree is only an agreement to convey, being a decree of the Court, it cannot be treated lightly.
• Registration of the document would amount to create encumbrance over the property that belongs to the Government.  Therefore the Registrar is justified in refusing the registration of the decree.
• Since the value of the property is Zero the document cannot be registered.
• The Registration can be done only in the office of Sub-Registrar in whose sub-District the order was made or where the decree or order does not affect immovable property.
• If a decree or order affects immovable property then the registration must be done with the jurisdictional sub Registrar of the place where the property is situated and not in any other place.
• The pendency of writ appeal is also a ground for refusal of registration.

The respondents submitted the following before the High Court-

• The Department misconceived Section 22A of the Registration Act.
• What is prohibited under Section 22A is only registration of instruments relating transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease and not otherwise.
• The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 makes it clear that the agreement of sale does not create any interest in immovable property and agreement of sale will not stand covered by Section 22(A) of the Registration Act.
• Once it is a court decree the Registrar has no discretion in valuation and he has to accept the valuation made in the decree.
• Only if it is a sale deed, the Registrar can raise question under section 47A of the Registration Act and not in cases of agreement of sale.
• The pending of writ appeal has nothing to do with the present transaction.

The High Court considered the submissions made by the parties.  The High Court considered the first submission of the appellant - The decree relates to a property which belongs to the Government and the same cannot be registered under Section 22(2A) of the Registration Act, 1908. 
The High Court observed that the decree is nothing but an agreement of sale subject to certain conditions.  Such a decree does not create an interest in immovable property.  Even a decree for specific performance will not create an interest in immovable property and that is the precise reason why Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been enacted to enable the Court to rescind the decree for specific performance under certain circumstances.  The High Court held that the first submission of the appellant overlooks the crucial provision of substantial law.

The High Court then considered the second submission of the appellant - Being a decree which affects immovable property it can be registered only with the jurisdictional Sub Registrar the place where the property is situate.  The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 28 and 29 of the Registration Act.  Section 28 provides for the place of registering of documents relating to land.  Section 29 provides for the place of registration for other documents which are not covered under Section 28.  Wherever a right or interest of immovable property is created, Section 28 provides that a document shall be registered only in the place where the property is situated and not in any other place.  Section 29 takes care to exclude a document referred to in Section 28. 

Section 29(2) provides that a copy of a decree or order may be presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar in whose sub-district the original decree or order was made, or, where the decree or order does not affect immovable property, in the office of any other Sub-Registrar under the State Government at which all the persons claiming under the decree or order desire the copy to be registered.

The High Court observed that Section 29(2) has two limbs.  The first limb provides that a decree or order of a court may be presented for registration in the office of sub Registrar in whose Sub District the original decree or order was made.  The second situation is where the decree or order does not affect immovable property, it may be registered in the office of any other Sub-Registrar under the State Government on which all persons claiming under the decree or order desire the copy to be registered.  If a decree or order does not affect the immovable property, by consent of the parties to the document can register the document in any office of the Sub-Registrar within the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore the High Court held that it was not able to sustain the objections of the appellant related to its second submission.

Then the High Court considered the third submission of the appellant - A litigation relating to grant of patta is pending and an order of stay has been granted.  The High Court observed that the writ appeal has been filed challenging a direction issued by the Court to grant patta to the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 12425 of 2008.  The defendant in the suit along with others had in fact, made a claim over the property.  Therefore pendency of writ appeal cannot be a ground to refused registration.

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Inspector General of Registration.