Madras High Court
S.Mary Dhanaselvi vs Assistant Commissioner on 3 October, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.2922 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.2922 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2485 and 2486 of 2020
S.Mary Dhanaselvi .. Petitioner
Versus
1.Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department,
Dindigul.
2.District Registrar,
Dindigul.
3.Sub Registrar,
Chinnalapatty,
Dindigul District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
communication dated 04.12.2015, issued by the first respondent to the second
respondent in Na.Ka.No.3089/2010 A3, quash the same and further direct the
first respondent to conduct an enquiry with respect to the title relating to S.No.
31/7 of Kalikkampatti Village, Dindigul Taluk, by giving opportunity to the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.2922 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar
For R1 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
For R2 and R3 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the communication dated
04.12.2015, issued by the first respondent to the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.3089/2010 A3.
2. Heard Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for the first
respondent and Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader
for the respondents 2 and 3.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property originally
belonged to her father-in-law by virtue of the registered sale deed, dated
16.07.1971. Thereafter, the father-in-law of the petitioner died intestate,
leaving behind his wife and the husband of the petitioner as his legal heirs.
The husband of the petitioner died on 16.01.2001 intestate leaving behind the
petitioner, his daughters and his mother as his legal heirs. The petitioner's
mother-in-law executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.2922 of 2020
daughters. The petitioner wanted to settle her share in the property in favour
of her daughters. When the petitioner approached the third respondent in this
regard, it was informed to the petitioner that the first respondent has sent a
communication, dated 04.12.2015, restraining the registration of any
documents pertaining to the subject property. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The issue that is involved in the present Writ Petition is covered by
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar and
others vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and others
reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135. The relevant portion in the said 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.2922 of 2020
(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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.2922 of 2020
(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed. No costs.''
5. In view of the above, as and when any document is presented by the
petitioner for registration, the Sub-Registrar shall deal with the same in the
light of the guidelines given by this Court supra. This will sufficiently take
care of the grievance expressed by the petitioner.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No 03.10.2023
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department,
Dindigul.
2.The District Registrar,
Dindigul.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Chinnalapatty,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.2922 of 2020
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
smn2
W.P.(MD)No.2922 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2485 and 2486 of 2020
03.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
