Madras High Court
S. Muthupandi vs The Sub-Registrar on 10 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.6351 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.6351 of 2025 and
WMP(MD).No.4676 of 2025
S. Muthupandi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Sanakarankovil Registrar Office,
Sankarankovil.
2.Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swamy Temple,
rep. by its Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer,
Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records of the impugned refusal check slip in Refusal No.RFL/
Sanakarankovil / 23/ 2025, dated 11.02.2025 passed by the 1st respondent
and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to register
the sale deed presented by the petitioner, dated 11.02.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.G. Sailendrababu
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Mr.Venkatesh Prasath
for Mr.VR. Shanmuganathan
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:38:13 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.6351 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the
impugned refusal check slip in Refusal No.RFL/ Sanakarankovil / 23/
2025, dated 11.02.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same
and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to register the sale deed
presented by the petitioner, dated 11.02.2025.
2. The petitioner claims that the petitioner's property situated in
Survey No.719/5 at Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi
District, belonged to one Samuel, Samuel partitioned the property and
1/3rd share was allotted to each of his heirs. Subsequently, the family of
Samuel decided to alienate the property in favour of the writ petitioner.
When the document was presented for registration, the first respondent
passed the impugned order stating that the 2nd respondent has given
objection for registration of the document.
3. According to the 2nd respondent, the property belongs to
Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swamy Temple, Sankaran Kovil, Tenkasi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:38:13 pm )
District.
4. On account of his objection, the first respondent directed the
petitioner to obtain a “No Objection” Certificate from the 2nd respondent
and thereafter, present the document for registration. Challenging the
same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
5. I have heard Mr.G.Sailendra Babu, for the petitioner, and
Mr.N. Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate appearing for
1st respondent and Mr.Venkatesh Prasath for Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for
the 2nd respondent.
6. The position of law as to how a Sub Registrar should proceed,
when the religious institution objects for registration, has been dealt with
by a Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravikumar and another Vs.
The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and two others
(AIR 2017 Madras 203). The Division Bench gave the following
directions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:38:13 pm )
“26. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:38:13 pm )
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.
7. It is clear from the impugned order that the first respondent has
not followed the Judgment of the Division Bench and has refused to
receive the document only on the basis of the objection given by the 2nd
respondent. Hence, I am constrained to interfere. The impugned order is
quashed.
8. The first respondent shall issue notice to the writ petitioner as
well as the 2nd respondent. He shall conduct a summary enquiry. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:38:13 pm )
case, he has come to the conclusion the second respondent has an interest
in the property, he shall direct the petitioner and his vendor to approach
the jurisdictional civil Court. In case he has come to the conclusion the
claim of the second respondent is incorrect, he shall register the
document and release the same. He shall follow the directions given by
the Division Bench as extracted above.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 10.03.2025
NCC :Yes / No
trp
To
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Sanakarankovil Registrar Office,
Sankarankovil.
2.Arulmigu Sankaranarayana Swamy Temple,
rep. by its Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer,
Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:38:13 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
trp
W.P.(MD)No.6351 of 2025 and
10.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 05:38:13 pm )
