Madras HC Upholds Registration Direction for Woman’s Ex-Parte Decree, Saying Its Status Alone Is No Bar

The respondent sought a direction requiring the Sub-Registrar to register an ex parte decree dated 26 March 2014, presented on 12 May 2023 and assigned pending document No. P/Thiruverumbur/55/2023. The Sub-Registrar had neither registered nor refused the document

The appellants argued that the decree concerned property whose underlying title deeds had been cancelled by the District Registrar, that related civil proceedings and applications to set aside the decree were pending, and that the respondent had suppressed material facts and omitted interested parties

The Single Judge allowed the respondent’s writ petition; the registration authorities appealed

The Court applied the principle that a decree—whether contested or ex parte—presented for registration must be dealt with by the competent registering authority in accordance with law. An ex parte decree, by itself, is not a ground to refuse registration where no order setting aside the decree has been made

The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent

The Court found that the respondent had presented the decree for registration and that the Sub-Registrar had neither registered nor refused it

Since the decree had not been set aside, its ex parte character alone did not justify refusal; the authority remained required to deal with it according to law

The Court therefore found no merit in the appeal warranting interference, without separately resolving the appellants’ allegations concerning fraud, title deeds, suppression, or pending proceedings

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.