The case emerged from a matrimonial dispute involving the Petitioner and her husband, which was settled through a Family Partition Deed executed on December 20, 2011. The agreement outlined the transfer of two flats to the Petitioner and their son. Following the execution, both parties approached the Family Court, which retained the original Settlement Deed until their obligations under the agreement were fulfilled.

By January 27, 2012, the couple informed the Family Court of their compliance, leading to a divorce decree based on the Settlement Deed on February 17, 2012. Given that the decree pertained to immovable property, the Petitioner lodged a copy of the decree and the Settlement Deed with the Superintendent of Stamps on June 6, 2012, for stamp duty determination.

On August 28, 2012, the Stamp Authority assessed the stamp duty, which the Petitioner paid on August 30, 2012. After obtaining the duly stamped original document on September 13, 2012, the Petitioner attempted to register the Settlement Deed on November 16, 2012. However, registration was denied due to a claimed delay beyond the four-month period stipulated in Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Petitioner contested this decision, asserting that the time taken by the stamp authorities from June 6 to September 13, 2012, should be excluded from the four-month calculation. Citing the precedent set in Kirti Jagdish Mulani v. The State of Maharashtra, she argued that the circumstances justified an extension of the registration period.

In contrast, the Respondent, represented by learned AGP Mr. Sawant, maintained that the document was lodged after the statutory deadline, thereby justifying the refusal to register.

The Court acknowledged that the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal without granting a hearing to the Petitioner, which typically would warrant a remand. However, given the decade-long pendency of the case and its straightforward legal context, the Court opted to resolve the matter directly.

In examining Section 23 of the Registration Act, which allows for a four-month registration period post-execution, the Court recognized that the period from December 20, 2011, to February 17, 2012, could be excluded due to the Family Court’s retention of the document. Additionally, the time from June 6 to September 13, 2012, during which the Stamp Authority processed the deed, was also deemed non-attributable to the Petitioner.

The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, declaring the registration of the Settlement Deed to be timely and directing the Registration Authority to process the registration within 12 weeks. The ruling underscores the importance of considering delays caused by external factors, such as stamp duty adjudication, in the registration process.

This case highlights the intricate relationship between family law and registration statutes, affirming that procedural fairness must be upheld, especially in matters involving personal and familial assets. The decision serves as a significant reference for future cases involving similar registration issues, advocating for equitable treatment in the face of procedural complexities.