Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court quashed the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register two agreements for sale executed on 6 March 2018 and directed the Sub-Registrar to accept them for registration under the Registration Act, 1908. The Court held that the period during which the property was under a court-imposed restraint order should be excluded while computing limitation under Section 23, and since the agreements were presented immediately after the restraint was lifted, the registration was within limitation.
Facts
Grand Centrum Realty LLP entered into two agreements for sale dated 6 March 2018 with Vidhyarthi Sahayak Mandal, Sangli, for purchase of trust properties, after obtaining permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner on 31 January 2018. Subsequently, litigation ensued by third parties, resulting in an interim restraint by the Bombay High Court on 26 April 2018, prohibiting the trust from alienating the properties. The restraint was vacated on 8 May 2025. The petitioner paid stamp duty on 30 May 2025 and presented the agreements for registration on 16 June 2025. The Sub-Registrar refused registration, citing Section 23, stating that registration was sought beyond the four-month period from execution.
Issues
- Whether the four-month limitation under Section 23 of the Registration Act for presenting documents for registration is absolute when a court order restrained the alienation.
- Whether the period during which a court restraint order was in force should be excluded when computing limitation under the Registration Act.
- Whether the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing registration on grounds of limitation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued:
- The agreements were executed lawfully, but due to the court’s restraint order, they could not be presented for registration within the four-month limitation under Section 23.
- The period from 26 April 2018 to 8 May 2025 during which the restraint order was in force should be excluded while computing limitation.
- They presented the agreements immediately after the restraint was lifted, indicating absence of delay or negligence.
- They relied on Nestor Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra where the Court held that if circumstances beyond the control of parties prevent timely presentation, limitation can be extended.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued:
- Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 prescribes a clear four-month period from the date of execution for presenting documents for registration.
- The Sub-Registrar lacks the power to condone delay beyond this statutory period, regardless of circumstances.
- The refusal was in accordance with the statutory mandate, and the petition was liable to be dismissed.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Section 23 of the Registration Act, prescribing four months for presenting documents.
- Section 23A, 25, and 26, which indicate situations where the period can be extended due to unavoidable circumstances.
- The principle laid down in Nestor Builders, which held that statutory limitation must be interpreted to prevent defeating the right to register when there are genuine circumstances beyond control.
- The principle that when the restraint was imposed by a court order, the period of such restraint should be excluded while computing limitation under the Registration Act.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on:
- Nestor Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra (2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3480): The Bombay High Court held that limitation under Section 23 can be interpreted flexibly if circumstances beyond control prevent registration.
- Relevant provisions of Sections 23, 23A, 25, and 26 of the Registration Act: which cumulatively indicate legislative intent to permit registration in genuine cases of delay caused by unavoidable reasons.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held:
- The agreements were executed before the restraint order, and the restraint order was beyond the petitioner’s control, prohibiting alienation of the property.
- The petitioner promptly presented the agreements for registration after the restraint was lifted.
- The period during which the restraint was in force must be excluded while computing the limitation period under Section 23.
- The refusal by the Sub-Registrar was unsustainable in law, and the petitioner’s right to registration could not be defeated due to a genuine and unavoidable delay.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court:
- Quashed the Sub-Registrar’s refusal order dated 16 June 2025.
- Directed the Sub-Registrar to accept and register the agreements for sale dated 6 March 2018 under the Registration Act, 1908.
- Held that the period of court restraint must be excluded in computing limitation for presenting documents for registration.
Implications
- Reinforces that statutory limitation for registration can exclude periods of restraint under court orders.
- Clarifies that genuine, unavoidable delays beyond the control of parties should not defeat substantive rights under the Registration Act.
- Provides relief to parties who face procedural challenges due to litigation-related restraints.
Short Note on Cases Referred
- Nestor Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra: Held that limitation under Section 23 can be interpreted to exclude periods where presentation was impossible due to factors beyond the party’s control.
FAQs
1. Can the limitation period under Section 23 of the Registration Act exclude periods of court restraint?
Yes, periods during which a court prohibits alienation can be excluded while computing the limitation for presenting documents for registration.
2. Is the Sub-Registrar bound to register documents if the delay was due to a court’s restraint order?
Yes, if the period of restraint is excluded and the document is presented immediately after the restraint is lifted.
3. What did the Bombay High Court direct regarding the agreements for sale in this case?
The Court directed the Sub-Registrar to accept and register the agreements, quashing the refusal order.
