T.Rajasekar vs The Sub-Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 5416 Mad

                                                              W.P.No 30595 of 2017

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                DATED: 02.03.2021

                                    CORAM
              THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
                            W.P. No. 30595 of 2017


T.Rajasekar                                                          .. Petitioner
                                      Vs.

1.The Sub-Registrar,
  Ayyothiyapattinam,
  Salem District.

2.The Assistant Commissioner,
  Office of Assistant Commissioner of HR &CE,
  Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Department,
  Salem.

3.The Inspector,
  Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Department,
  Salem.                                                          .. Respondents



      Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the first respondent herein to register
the sale deed document presented for registration on 06.01.2016 and the same
was taken for registration in pending document No.1 of 2016 and release the
said document to the petitioner within an appropriate time.


              For Petitioners          : Mr. R.Nalliayappan


1/8
                                                                 W.P.No 30595 of 2017

             For Respondent 1          : Mr. P.P.Purushothaman
                                         Government Advocate
                               2&3     : Mr. G.N.Jayantheesan
                                         Government Advocate

                                  O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the

first respondent to register the sale deed presented for registration on

06.01.2016 and to release the document after registering the same.

2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as

follows:

The petitioner purchased a property comprised in S.F. No.108/2 at

Karmapuram Village, Salem District, from one Periyasamy by a registered sale

deed dated 06.01.2016. It is admitted by the petitioner that earlier the said

property was purchased on behalf of the temple known as Arulmigu

Annamarswamy Temple represented by its Dharmakartha by name Periyasamy

by registered sale deed dated 19.08.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the

temple authorities decided to sell the property to purchase another property.

When the petitioner presented the document of sale dated 06.01.2016 for

registration, it is stated that the first respondent refused to register the same

and insisted the petitioner to get no objection from second respondent. A

W.P.No 30595 of 2017

representation was also submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, the second

respondent in this Writ petition, by the petitioner's vendor and others,

requesting him to give a certificate to the effect that the property does not

belong to Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRNC)

Department. Though the petitioner's vendor and others submitted a

representation to the Sub-Registrar in the month of April 2016, the same was

not considered and hence the above writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though admit that the

property was originally purchased on behalf of the temple through its

Dharmakartha by Thiru. Periyasamy by virtue of a sale deed dated 19.08.2011,

it is contended that the property belonged to a private temple and not to any

religious institution as defined under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents

relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Sudha Ravi Kumar and another Vs. The Special Commissioner and

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department

reported in [2017 (3) CTC 135]. The Division Bench of this Court considered

W.P.No 30595 of 2017

the power of Registering Authority to refuse to register certain documents

which falls under Section 22 A of the Registration Act. If a claim is made by

any religious institution in relation to any immovable property, it is held that

the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the document by a non

speaking order. This Court after considering the facts and events issued the

following guidelines:

“...

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.

(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

W.P.No 30595 of 2017

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.”

5. In the present case, the petitioner has produced before this Court a sale

deed which shows that the property was originally purchased on behalf of the

temple known as Arulmigu Annamarswamy Temple. The petitioner's vendor

just represented the temple in his capacity as 'Dharmakartha' when the property

was purchased. However, the same person, after purchasing the property, in his

individual capacity along with others executed a subsequent sale deed in favour

of the petitioner as if the executants are the absolute owners of the property.

W.P.No 30595 of 2017

The recitals of the document dated 19.08.2011 and the sale deed that was

executed subsequently suggest different version than what is pleaded in this

writ petition.

6. The petitioner has not produced any other title deed other than the

document namely the sale deed dated 19.08.2011. The prior document indicates

that the ownership of the property vests with the temple. However, the

petitioner's contention is that the property belongs to a private temple and not to

a religious institution as defined under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act.

7. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the Sub Registrar

namely the first respondent in this Writ Petition is competent to decide whether

the property is the property of a religious institution or not after issuing notice

to all the parties concerned and following the guidelines of this Court in the

case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and another Vs. The Special Commissioner and

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department

reported in [2017 (3) CTC 135].

W.P.No 30595 of 2017

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed with a direction to the first

respondent herein to consider the registration of sale deed dated 16.01.2016 in

the light of the judgment of the Division Bench reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135

and to register the sale deed and to proceed further as directed in the judgment

if it is found that the property does not belong to any religious institution. In

case the first respondent is fully convinced with the title and ownership of the

religious institution (public temple), it is open to the first respondent to pass

appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner and the second respondent. The

first respondent shall pass appropriate orders or register the document within a

period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No

costs.

02.03.2021 Index:Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order bkn

To

1.The Sub-Registrar, Ayyothiyapattinam, Salem District.

W.P.No 30595 of 2017

S.S.SUNDAR. J.,

bkn

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Office of Assistant Commissioner of HR &CE, Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Department, Salem.

3.The Inspector, Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Department, Salem.

W.P. No. 30595 of 2017

01.03.2021