Madras High Court
P.M.Ramaswamy vs The Sub Registrar on 16 June, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
P.M.Ramaswamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub Registrar,
Srirangam Registrar Office,
Srirangam, Trichy District.
2. Sri Renganathaswamy Temple,
Srirangam, represented by
Executive Officer / Joint Commissioner,
having Office at Devasthanam Office,
Srirangam, Trichy-06. .. Respondents
(Respondent No.2 is impleaded vide Court order
dated19.02.201 in W.M.P.(MD).No.2904 of 2019
in W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the respondent in his proceedings in RFL/Srirangam/2/2018,
dated 04.12.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry after issue of notice and
conducting an enquiry by hearing both parties and pass necessary order
for afresh to register the documents presented by the petitioner in respect
of the property situated in T.S.No.1311, Block No.25, Ward Door
No.93/77, Keezhaadaiyavalanjan Veedhi, Srirangam, Trichy-620 006.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For R-1 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel,
Government Advocate (Civil)
For R-2 : Mr.M.Saravanan
ORDER
This Writ Petition challenges the proceedings of the first
respondent, dated 04.12.2018 and for a consequential direction to the
respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry after issuing notice by hearing
both parties and pass necessary orders afresh to register the documents
presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the
proposed purchaser of the property situated in Town Survey No.1311,
Block No.50, Ward 2, Vellithirumutham Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy
District. The subject property originally belonged to one Mrs.Cheppayee
Ammal, daughter of Nallakannu Konar and the same was settled in
favour of one Cinnaponnu Ammal, the first daughter of Nallakannu
Konar, by way of Gift Settlement Deed. Thereafter, the above said
property devolved upon to one Kalayanasundaram, son of Marimuthu
Konar, who is the great grandson of Chinnaponnu Ammal, by virtue of a
Will, registered as Document No.83/1969. It is the further case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
petitioner that eversince from the date of registration, the petitioner's
vendor was in possession and enjoyment of the subject property till date.
The petitioner has also obtained the Encumbrance Certificate in respect
of T.S.No.1311 and no other Hindu Temple or Government Temple was
found in the Register of Ownership maintained in respect of the subject
property. The petitioner further states that when the agreement of sale
was presented for registration before the first respondent on 04.12.2018,
without verifying any supporting documents produced by the petitioner,
the first respondent simply rejected the same, without assigning any valid
reason. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed
before this Court.
3. Heard Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.S.Shanmugavel, learned Government Advocate (Civil
appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.M.Saravanan, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.
4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit along
with the typed set of papers in order to establish its rights over the
subject property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
5. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely
covered by the directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Sudha
Ravi Kumar Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai
34 and others reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135. The relevant portion in
the judgment is extracted hereunder :
"25. In view of the above discussions, all
the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned
orders are set aside with the following directions:
(i) The registering authority before whom the
document has been presented shall cause service
of notice on the parties to the deeds and also to the
objector / religious institution, hold summary
enquiry, hear the parties and then either register or
refuse to register the document by passing an order
having regard to the relevant facts as indicated
above.
(ii) If the registering authority, refuses to register
any document by accepting the objections raised
under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the
aggrieved may file a statutory appeal under the
Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
(iii) If the objections raised under Section 22-A of
the Act by the religious institution are rejected and
the document is registered, the remedy for the
religious institution is to either approach this
Court by way of a writ petition seeking
cancellation of the registration or for any other
relief or to approach the civil Court for declaration
of the title and for other consequential reliefs.
(iv) If the registering authority refuses to register
the document acting on the objections raised by a
religious institution under Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, the parties to the deed will be at
liberty to straightaway approach the Civil Court
for declaration of title and other relief without
availing the opportunity for filing a statutory
appeal.
(v) We further direct that if the deed has already
been registered without there being any objection
by the religious institution under Section 22-A of
the Act, the document shall be returned to the
parties concerned leaving it open for the religious
institution to approach either the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
Civil Court for appropriate relief as indicated
above. At any rate, the registering authority shall
not withhold the deed which has already been
registered.
(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. No costs."
6. In view of the above directions issued by the Hon'ble
Division Bench, it is left open to the first respondent to conduct an
enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner and the second respondent in
line with paragraph No.25 (extracted above) and take a decision within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to
the first respondent along with a copy of this order.
8. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above
directions. No costs.
16.06.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
tsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kovilpatti Sub Division,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Ottapidaram Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Ottapidaram Sub Registrar Office,
Ottapidaram,
Thoothukudi District.
NOTE:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that
is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
tsg
W.P.(MD).No.2776 of 2019
16.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
