The Sub Registrar vs Hemalatha
2024 Latest Caselaw 5168 Mad

Madras High Court

The Sub Registrar vs Hemalatha on 5 March, 2024

Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

                                                                           W.A.No.2004 of 2023


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED:   05.03.2024

                                                      CORAM

                             THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                         AND
                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

                                                W.A.No.2004 of 2023

                     The Sub Registrar
                     Sowcarpet
                     Davidson Street
                     Chennai 600 001.                                 ..    Appellant

                                                         Vs.

                     1. Hemalatha

                     2. The Executive Officer
                        Sri Chennai Malleeswara and
                          Chennakesavalu Devasthanam Temple
                        N.S.C. Bose Road
                        Chennai 600 001.                              ..    Respondents


                     Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

                     order dated 17.11.2021 made in W.P.No.18540 of 2020.




                     __________
                     Page 1 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                W.A.No.2004 of 2023




                                       For the Appellant         : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar
                                                                   State Government Pleader

                                       For the Respondents       : Mr.Vijayakrishnan
                                                                   for Respondent-1

                                                                   Mr.S.D.Ramalingam
                                                                   for Respondent-2


                                                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

We have heard Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State

Government Pleader for the appellant, Mr.Vijayakrishnan, learned

counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.D.Ramalingam, learned

counsel for the second respondent.

2. The present first respondent had presented a document for

registration. However, the same is not being registered without no

objection certificate from the temple authorities.

3. The leasehold rights of the temple property and the

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

ownership rights of the superstructure were sought to be

transferred by the instrument that was submitted for registration. It

was observed by the registering authority that the leasehold rights

of the property were also being transferred in the said indenture of

the sale deed without no objection of the temple. The writ petitioner

was directed to get no objection of the temple. The learned Single

Judge, while allowing the writ petition, directed the writ petitioner

to file an undertaking that the writ petitioner will not claim any

leasehold rights in the land.

4. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that

the leasehold rights could never have been transferred. According to

learned counsel for the first respondent/original writ petitioner, the

writ petitioner is directed to give an undertaking that she will not

claim the leasehold rights.

5. In case the instrument, i.e. indenture of sale is registered,

then, the document would be contrary to the undertaking. Under

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the document submitted for registration, the lease of the land of the

temple was the subject matter of assignment along with the

ownership of the superstructure. Certainly, the leasehold rights of

the land could not have been transferred without the consent of the

temple. Giving an undertaking subsequently would not serve the

purpose. The writ petitioner can withdraw the document, rectify the

document and submit it without claiming leasehold rights in the

property.

6. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the

first respondent would rectify the instrument and would restrict the

sale deed to the extent of superstructure only. The writ petitioner is

entitled to withdraw the document in accordance with the provisions

and may submit the document, either fresh one or by rectifying the

said instrument, thereby claiming only sale and/or purchase of

superstructure. If the said document is submitted, then, the

respondent authority shall take steps to register it, in case it

complies with all other statutory provisions.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. The writ appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. There shall

be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.17033 of 2023 is

closed.

                                                              (S.V.G., CJ.)            (D.B.C., J.)
                                                                              05.03.2024

                     Index            : Yes/No
                     Neutral Citation : Yes/No

                     kpl




                     __________



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis





                                      THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                           AND
                                   D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.


                                                        (kpl)









                                                     05.03.2024




                     __________



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis