Madras High Court
Jinnath Barveen vs The Sub Registrar on 14 March, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.6961 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD).No.6961 of 2025
Jinnath Barveen .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub Registrar,
O/o. Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi.
2.The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil.
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District. .. Respondents
(R-2 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order
dated 14.03.2025 in W.P.(MD).No.6961 of 2025)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the impugned order in RFL/Sankarankovil/10/25 from the respondent and
quash the same as illegal and consequently directing respondent to register
the document dated 28.01.2025 presented by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Gavin Silvester
For R-1 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
For R-2 : Mr.R.Rajesh Kumar
for V.R.Shanmuganathan
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:07:29 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.6961 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the first
respondent in RFL/Sankarankovil/10/25 and consequently, to direct the
first respondent to register the document dated 28.01.2025 presented by the
petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that one Sainudheen had acquired the
property situated in Survey Nos.998/2, 998/4, 998/12 and 998/9 of Therku
Sankarankovil Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District from one Shri
Padmanabha Bharatha Kumar. The sale deed was executed in favour of
Mr.Sainudheen on 16.06.2015 and was registered as Document
No.1769/2015. The said Sainudheen had executed a deed of power of
attorney appointing the writ petitioner as his power agent.
3. Pursuant to the power, the petitioner identified one Muthukumar to
purchase the aforesaid property. She executed a sale deed dated 28.01.2025
and presented the same for registration. The first respondent refused to
register the sale deed and issued a refusal check slip on 29.01.2025 on the
ground that the Executive Officer of Shri Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil
had given an objection for registration of the property situated in Survey
Nos.998/2, 998/4, 998/12 and 998/9, claiming that the property belongs to
the temple. Hence, this Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:07:29 pm )
4. The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu
Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukovil. Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District is a
proper and necessary party to the Writ Petition. Hence, he is suo motu
impleaded as the second respondent. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan takes notice
for the second respondent. Registry is directed to carry out necessary
amendments in the cause title.
5. I heard Mr.Gavin Silvester for the writ petitioner, Mr.N.Ramesh
Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and
Mr.R.Rajesh Kumar representing Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for the second
respondent.
6. The position of law, as to how a Sub Registrar must proceed when
an objection has been given by a religious institution, has been settled by a
Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravikumar and another Vs. Sub
Registrar Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and
others, 2017 (4) MLJ 445. The view taken in Sudha Ravikumar's case has
been reiterated by yet another Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel
Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others, 2024 (4) CTC 769.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:07:29 pm )
7. The Division Bench had held that when an objection is made by a
religious institution, the Sub Registrar should do the following:
“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.
(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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:07:29 pm )
(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.”
8. Without adhering to the judgment of the Division Bench, the
impugned order has been passed in the present case. Therefore, the
impugned order is quashed. The first respondent shall receive the sale deed
presented by the petitioner dated 28.01.2025. He shall thereafter issue
notice to the Executive Officer of Shri Sankaranarayaswamy Thirukovil and
call upon the temple to produce the documents in support of their case.
After conducting a summary enquiry, the Sub Registrar shall proceed
further. In case, he comes to the conclusion that the claim made by the
temple is not sustainable, he shall proceed to register the sale deed. In case
he comes to the conclusion that the claim made by the temple is tenable, he
shall pass appropriate orders thereafter. In either case, the second
respondent temple and the petitioner will be entitled to work out their rights
before a Civil Court thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:07:29 pm )
9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
14.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
To
The Sub Registrar,
O/o. Sub Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:07:29 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
14.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2025 06:07:29 pm )
