Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.87 seconds)A.K. Gnanasankar vs The Joint Ii Sub Registrar on 23 March, 2007
Subsequently, a Division Bench of
this Court in A.K.Gnanasankar Vs. Joint-II Sub Registrar, Cuddalore
reported in 2007 (2) TCJ 68, has held that, a decree is a permanent
record of Court and the limitation prescribed for presentation of the
document under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, is not
applicable to a decree presented for registration.
S.Sarvothaman vs The Sub-Registrar on 7 February, 2019
In such circumstances, the law laid down by this
Court clearly states that the limitation prescribed under the
Act would not stand attracted."
The Registration Act, 1908
Section 25 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Anitha vs The Inspector Of Registration on 1 March, 2021
8. The above judgment was followed in Anitha Vs. The
Inspector of Registration in W.P.No.24857 of 2014 dated 01.03.2021,
wherein it is held that the Registrar cannot refuse registration of a
Court decree on the ground of limitation.
Padala Satyanarayana Murthy vs Padala Gangamma And Ors. on 7 April, 1959
6. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Padala
Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Padala Gangamma, reported in AIR 1959
AP 626, has held that a decree/order passed by a competent Court is
not compulsorily registrable document and the party cannot be
compelled to get the document registered when there is no obligation
cast upon him to register the same.
S.Lingeswaran vs The Sub Registrar on 23 April, 2021
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, admittedly, the petitioner
obtained a decree dated 12.11.1999 in A.S.No.74 of 1997. When the said
decree was presented before the respondent for registering the same, it was
rejected by citing Section 23 of the Registration Act. The rejection order is
wholly in contravention of the order passed in Lingeswaran's case (supra),
and ratio laid down therein is squarely applicable to the present case.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1