Madras High Court
R.Renganayaki vs The District Registrar on 6 November, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(MD)No.30436 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(MD)No.30436 of 2023
and WMP(MD) No.26197 of 2023
R.Renganayaki
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Registrar,
Tiruchirapalli, Administration Court Compound,
Trichy.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Srirangam, Trichirapalli.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Srirangam,
Trichy.
4. The Executive Officer,
Sri Renganathar Devasthanam,
Srirangam, Trichy.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the order of the 1st respondent, dated 28.03.2023 in Na.Ka.
No.3749/A1/2023 and the order of the 2nd respondent in refusal No.140/2020,
dated 05.08.2020 and refusal No.200/2020, dated 27.08.2020 annexed in Na.Ka.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.30436 of 2023
No.724/2022, dated 20.02.2023 and to quash the same as illegal and
consequentially directing the 2nd respondent to register the documents in
P26/2009, dated 23.02.2009 and P186/2009, dated 18.12.2009 for the property in
Flat No.7/G2, Block No.51, Brindavan Apartment, S. No.720, New S. No.2654/2,
Door No.7/19, South Devi Street, Srirangam.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Madhavan
For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh (R1,R2)
Government Advocate
Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan (R3)
Mr.M.Saravanan (R4)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 1st
respondent, dated 28.03.2023 in Na.Ka. No.3749/A1/2023 and the order of the 2 nd
respondent in refusal No.140/2020, dated 05.08.2020 and refusal No.200/2020,
dated 27.08.2020 annexed in Na.Ka. No.724/2022, dated 20.02.2023 and
consequentially directing the 2nd respondent to register the documents in
P26/2009, dated 23.02.2009 and P186/2009, dated 18.12.2009 for the property in
Flat No.7/G2, Block No.51, Brindavan Apartment, S. No.720, New S. No.2654/2,
Door No.7/19, South Devi Street, Srirangam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned
counsels appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. Perused the materials on record.
3.When the sale deed presented for registration by the petitioner,
refusal check slips have been issued by the second respondent, against which, the
petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent, the order of
dismissal, dated 28.03.2023 came to be passed. Challenging the same, this writ
petition has been filed.
4.The petitioner had purchased a Flat No.7/G2, Block No.51,
Brindavan Apartment, S. No.720, (New S.No.2654/2), Door No.7/19, South Devi
Street, Srirangam from one Rajakumari Rathinasamy on 23.02.2009 and presented
the sale deed for registration. However, it was retained as a pending document in
Doc.No.26/2009, since the title over the property was disputed by the 4th
respondent. According to the 4th respondent, the subject property belongs to the
Temple/4th respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.While so, the petitioner has also executed a settlement deed, dated
18.12.2009 in favour of her daughter. It was also kept pending as a pending
document in Doc.No.186/2009, since there is no title vested on the petitioner.
Thereafter, the petitioner did not take any steps to register the sale deed, though
submitted representations.
6.Finally, the second respondent issued a refusal check-slip, dated
20.02.2023 on the ground that the document, which was presented for registration
is kept pending for the past 12 years and it is against Rule 22-A of Tamil Nadu
Registration Rules, 1983.
7.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before
the first respondent with delay. However, the said appeal was dismissed on the
ground of delay.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th
respondent merely produced a copy of 'A Register' and claiming title over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
subject property. The 4th respondent did not even produce any document to show
that the 4th respondent/Temple is the owner of the property. If at all any dispute
over the title, the 4th respondent ought to have approach the Civil Court. In
support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in
W.P(MD) No.12966 of 2021, dated 20.12.2023, wherein, it is held that the
persons, who are claiming right over the property cannot made to await endlessly
and the stalemate cannot be continued forever. Therefore, they have to approach
the civil Court for declaration in respect of title over the property.
9.On instructions, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted
that the temple is the owner of the subject property. In the affidavit, the petitioner
has wrongly mentioned the survey number as S.No.720, instead of S.No.760 under
T.D.No.1027. Title Deed No.1027 belongs to the Temple/R4 in respect of various
properties. In fact, the very same title deed in T.D.No.1027 has been dealt with by
this Court in a case of another purchaser in W.P(MD) No.14455 of 2019, dated
25.09.2024. wherein, it is held that the property belonging to the 4th respondent by
virtue of title deed No.1027 and the subject property is also the subject matter of
the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari Act) 30 of 1963. Ultimately by Judgment and decree,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 23.02.1980 passed in Inam C.M.A.No.65 of 1978, patta was granted in
favour of the fourth respondent/Temple. The said order reached its finality.
10.As such, the second respondent rightly refused to register the sale
deed presented by the petitioner for registration. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim title over the property merely on the basis earlier title and possession of the
subject property. That apart, the petitioner had presented the sale deed for
registration in the year 2009 and it was kept pending in Doc.No.26/2009, based on
the objection raised by the 4th respondent and also claimed title over the subject
property. Thereafter, the petitioner kept quiet and slept over the matter till 2022.
Based on the representation submitted by the petitioner in respect of pending
document, the second respondent has issued a refusal check slip on 20.02.2023.
11.Further Section 22-A of Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1983 is a
bar to register a document, when the property is belongs to the Temple. Therefore,
this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the respondents 1
and 2. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty
is granted to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, if he is so advised. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.11.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
PNM
To
1. The District Registrar,
Tiruchirapalli, Administration Court Compound,
Trichy.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Srirangam, Trichirapalli.
3. The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Srirangam,
Trichy.
4. The Executive Officer,
Sri Renganathar Devasthanam,
Srirangam, Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
