Madras High Court
Mr.K.Vadivelu vs The Sub Registrar on 29 June, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.19067 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.19067 of 2020
Mr.K.Vadivelu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Y.Othakadai,
Madurai District.
2.Arulmigu Kalamega Perumal Thirukovil,
Rep. By its
The Executive Officer,
Thirumohoor,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to
register the document to be submitted by the petitioner with regard to
Plot No.70 in “Perumal Nagar” situated in Survey No.49/1A & 49/1B,
Thirumohoor Village, Madurai North Taluk (Presently Madurai East
Taluk), Madurai District measuring 4 cents 74 square feet and hand over
the original documents to the petitioner.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.19067 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar for R1
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of
Mandamus directing the first respondent to register the document
submitted by the petitioner and to hand over the same after registration.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the
subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 03.08.2010.
The further case of the petitioner is that patta was also granted in his
favour in patta No.931. The petitioner wanted to deal with the subject
property and hence, executed a sale deed and presented the same for
registration before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the first respondent is refusing to register the sale deed, on the
ground that there is an objection from the second respondent temple.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before
this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.19067 of 2020
3. Heard Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the first respondent.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the issue involved in the
present Writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar and others Vs. The Special
Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department and Ors. reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135. It
will be relevant to extract para 25 of the judgment herein:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.19067 of 2020
statutory appeal under the Act.
(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 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”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.19067 of 2020
5. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the first
respondent to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the above
guidelines, by affording opportunity to the petitioner and the second
respondent and take a decision regarding the registration of the
document, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
6. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No
costs.
29.06.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vsm
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.19067 of 2020
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
vsm
To
The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar Office,
Y.Othakadai,
Madurai District.
W.P.(MD).No.19067 of 2020
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
