Shanmuga Priya vs The Sub Registrar
2025 Latest Caselaw 3584 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3584 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 March, 2025

Madras High Court

Shanmuga Priya vs The Sub Registrar on 5 March, 2025

                                                                                    W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2025

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 05.03.2025

                                                      CORAM

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                     Writ Petition(MD)No.5885 of 2025

                Shanmuga Priya
                                                                                         ..Petitioner

                                                           Vs

                1.The Sub Registrar,
                  Sub Registrar Office,
                  Sankarankovil,
                  Tenkasi District.

                2.The Executive Officer,
                  Sankaranarayana Swamy Thirukovil,
                  Sankarankovil,
                  Tenkasi District.                                                       ..Respondents


                Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
                records relating to the impugned refusal slip in RFL/Sankarankovil/2/2025
                dated 09.01.2025 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal
                and consequently direct the respondents to register the release deed presented
                by the petitioner's son namely, Manibharathi within a time stipulated by this
                Court.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis           ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:37 pm )
                1/7
                                                                                      W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2025



                                     For Petitioner  : Mr.M.Arikaran
                                     For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam
                                                      Govt. Advocate (for R1)

                                                               Mr.R.Shanmuganathan for
                                                               Mr.VR.Shanmuganathanm (for R2)



                                                 ORDER

The writ petition is filed to quash the impugned refusal slip in

RFL/Sankarankovil/2/2025 dated 09.01.2025 issued by the first respondent and

direct the first respondent to register the release deed presented by the

petitioner's son namely, Manibharathi within the stipulated time.

2. The petitioner's husband, one Arumugasamy had purchased property

measuring an extent of 0.26.50 hectare comprised in S.No.198B/2 situated at

Vadakkupudur Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District, by way of

registered sale deeds dated 19.08.2010 and 06.08.2013. The said

Arumugasamy passed away on 25.07.2020. He left behind as legal heirs, the

petitioner, and their son, Manibharathi and their daughter, Swetha. Out of

natural love and affection, the son and daughter decided to settle the property in

favour the writ petitioner. Accordingly, they executed a release deed and

presented it for registration before the first respondent. The first respondent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:37 pm )

rejected it under the impugned order stating that the second respondent has

given an objection that no sale deed must be registered for the property which

is subject matter covered by the document. Hence, this writ petition.

3. I have heard Mr.M.Arikaran for the petitioner and Mr.P.T.Thiraviam,

learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and

Mr.R.Shanmuganathan for Mr.V.R Shanmuganathan for the second respondent.

4. Mr.P.T.Thiraviam has produced written instructions from the Sub

Registrar stating that on account of the objection that have been given by the

Executive Officer of the second respondent Temple on 10.04.2023 in Letter No.

377/2018/A2, the document has not been registered.

5. The position of law is no longer res integra. It has been settled by a

Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar vs. The Special

Commissioner and Commissioner, H.R and C.E., Chennai, 2017(3) CTC

135. The Division Bench has directed the manner in which a Sub Registrar

must proceed, when an objection is given by the religious institution with

regard to the presentation of the document. The Division Bench held as

follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:37 pm )

“25...........

(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 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.............”

6. Instead of adopting the procedure laid down by the Division Bench of

this Court, the first respondent herein has issued a refusal check slip. As the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 05:05:37 pm )

order of the first respondent is contrary to the Judgment of the Division Bench,

the same is liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned refusal slip

in RFL/Sankarankovil/2/2025 dated 09.01.2025 issued by the first respondent

is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for reconsideration of

the issue as per the judgment referred above.

8. The first respondent, in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench,

shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as the second respondent. He shall

conduct a summary enquiry as directed above and pass orders. Depending