Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the refusal of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances-I, Jat, District Sangli to register two Agreements for Sale executed on 6 March 2018 between Grand Centrum Realty LLP and Vidhyarthi Sahayak Mandal, Sangli. The trust had obtained permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 by an order dated 31 January 2018 to alienate its properties to the petitioner. After the agreements were executed, certain legal proceedings were initiated by parties with adverse interests, and on 26 April 2018 the High Court passed an interim order restraining the trust from executing any deed of conveyance in favour of newly impleaded parties. Due to the pending litigation and the restraint order, the agreements were not lodged for registration for several years. On 22 February 2019, the competent authority adjudicated the stamp duty, and on 8 May 2025 the High Court dismissed the pending writ petitions and vacated the ad-interim relief. The petitioner deposited the necessary stamp duty with the Collector of Stamps, Sangli on 30 May 2025 and presented the agreements for registration before the Sub-Registrar on 16 June 2025. The Sub-Registrar refused registration by orders dated 16 June 2025 on the ground that under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, the statutory time for presenting documents for registration is four months from the date of execution, and since the documents were executed on 6 March 2018 and presented on 16 June 2025, the registrar had no power to register them beyond the prescribed period. The core legal issue was whether the period during which a court restraint order prohibited alienation of the property should be excluded while computing the four-month limitation under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, and whether the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing registration. The petitioner, relying on the decision in Nestor Builders and Developers Private Limited and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., argued that a cumulative reading of Sections 23, 23A, 25 and 26 of the Registration Act, 1908 demonstrated the legislature's intention to permit registration beyond four months if the delay was bona fide and due to a cause beyond the control of the party. The respondents contended that the registrar had no power to register documents beyond the prescribed period mandated by law. The court accepted the petitioner's contention. It noted that the delay was purely attributable to the continued restraint order passed by the court from 26 April 2018 until 8 May 2025. Excluding that period, the presentation of the documents on 16 June 2025 was well within the four-month period. The court observed that a legal right accrued to a party to get a document registered under the Registration Act cannot be defeated when reasons exist which are beyond the control of the party presenting the document for registration. Since the delay was bona fide and not intentional or deliberate, the period of the court stay had to be excluded. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 16 June 2025 were quashed and set aside, and the Sub-Registrar was directed to accept the Agreements for Sale dated 6 March 2018 for registration under the provisions of the Registration Act. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Registration Law - Limitation for Registration - Computation of Time Under Section 23 - Registration Act, 1908, Sections 23, 23A, 25, 26 - The writ petition challenged refusal by Sub-Registrar to register sale agreements presented after more than seven years due to a court restraint order. The court held that cumulative reading of Sections 23, 23A, 25 and 26 shows legislative intent to allow registration beyond four months where delay is bona fide and due to cause beyond control of the party, and that the period of court stay from 26 April 2018 to 8 May 2025 must be excluded. After exclusion, the presentation on 16 June 2025 was within four months; therefore the refusal orders were quashed and registration directed (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing registration of Agreements for Sale presented beyond four months under Section 23 of Registration Act, 1908 when the delay was caused by a court restraint order; whether the period during which the restraint order was in force should be excluded while computing the limitation period for registration.
Final Decision
Writ Petitions were allowed. The orders dated 16 June 2025 passed by Respondent No.2 were quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 was directed to accept the Agreements for Sale dated 6 March 2018 for registration under the provisions of the Registration Act. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 23 of Registration Act
- 1908 prescribes four months from date of execution for presenting documents
- cumulative reading of Sections 23
- 23A
- 25
- 26 of Registration Act
- 1908 permits acceptance beyond four months if delay is bona fide and due to cause beyond control of party
- period of court restraint order must be excluded while computing limitation
- legal right to registration cannot be defeated by reasons beyond control of party
