Bombay High Court: The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the refusal of the Respondent-Sub-Registrar to register two Agreements for Sale, on the ground that they were presented beyond the four-month limitation under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (‘Registration Act’). The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., considering the facts of the case, allowed the petition and held that a bona-fide delay beyond control caused by a Court imposed restraint must be excluded for the purpose of calculation of the period of limitation under the provisions of the Registration Act.
Background:
The petitioner had entered into Agreements for Sale with a charitable trust on 6-3-2018. The trust had obtained permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner for the sale of its properties to the petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Joint Charity Commissioner by its order dated 31-1-2018 granted permission to the trust to alienate its properties to the petitioner. However, pursuant to the said order, certain legal proceedings and petitions were filed by parties claiming interest in the said properties, which resulted in an interim order passed by the High Court dated 26-4-2018, directing that until the next date, the trust should not execute any deed of conveyance in favour of the newly impleaded parties.
According to the petitioner, although the agreements were already executed prior to the interim order, the said agreements were not lodged for registration because of the pending litigation and restraint. After the Court dismissed the earlier writ petitions on 8-5-2025, thereby vacating the restraint, the petitioner presented the Agreements for Sale for registration before the Sub-Registrar on 16-4-2025. The petitioner had duly deposited the necessary stamp duty, and the Collector of Stamps accordingly endorsed the documents in compliance with Section 41 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
The Sub-Registrar, however, refused to register the Agreements for Sale presented to him on the ground that under Section 23 of the Registration Act the statutory time for presenting documents for registration was four months from the date of its execution and since the documents sought to be registered were executed on 6-3-2018 and presented on 16-4-2025, the Sub-Registrar had no power to register the said documents beyond the prescribed period as mandated by law.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that a legal right accrued to a party to get a document registered as per the provisions of the Registration Act could not stand defeated when reasons existing were beyond the control of the party presenting the document for registration and the four-month period under Section 23 of the Registration Act could still apply, as the delay was bona fide, unintentional, and caused by genuine circumstances.
The Court observed that the delay was purely due to the restraint order issued by a Court of law, which remained in effect until it was vacated on 8-5-2025. The Court noted that immediately thereafter, on 16-6-2025, the petitioner submitted the relevant documents to the Sub-Registrar for registration, therefore, the period from 26-4-2018 (the date the restraint order was issued) to 8-5-2025 should be excluded when calculating the limitation period under the provisions of the Registration Act.
The Court submitted that the entire period available for the petitioner to present the documents for registration, excluding the period of existence of the restraint order, did not exceed the total period of four months, and since the bona fide delay was beyond the control of the petitioner and clearly not attributable to any intentional or deliberate act or negligence on the part of the petitioner, the same would be required to be excluded, permitting the petitioner to avail registration of the documents.
The Court, therefore, allowed the petition and directed the Sub-Registrar to accept the Agreements of Sale for registration under the provisions of Registration Act.
[Grand Centrum Realty LLP v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2579, decided on 4-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Prerak Sharma
For the Respondents: R.S. Pawar, AGP
Buy Constitution of India HERE
