Madras High Court
J.Ebenezer Sathya Prakash vs The Sub-Registrar on 28 March, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.3944 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD).No.3944 of 2025
J.Ebenezer Sathya Prakash .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Sub-Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
2.Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy Thirukoil,
Represented by the Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in RFL/Sankarankoil/111/2024
dated 22.11.2024 and quash the same and further directing the respondent
to entertain the sale deed dated 28.01.2025 for registration and
consequently to register and release the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajesh
For R-1 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R-2 : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
for Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 10:52:20 am )
W.P.(MD).No.3944 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned proceedings of the
first respondent in RFL/Sankarankoil/111/2024 dated 22.11.2024.
2. The petitioner's mother one J.Vimala Kantharuby is the owner of a
portion of the property situated in Survey No.438/B2A of Kalappakulam
Village, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tenkasi District. She had purchased the same
on 22.02.2010. The sale was registered in Document No.798/2010. Vimala
Kantharuby decided to settle the property in favour of the writ petitioner on
22.11.2024. When the document was presented for registration, the first
respondent refused to register the document stating that the second
respondent had objected to the same. He issued a refusal check slip.
Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition.
3. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader,
strongly opposing the Writ Petition, pleads that on account of the objection
that had been given by the temple, the Sub Registrar invoked Section 22-A of
the Registration Act and refused registration. Therefore, no exception can be
taken to the said order.
4. Notice was ordered to the second respondent in the Writ Petition. A
counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 10:52:20 am )
5. In the counter, it is urged that Survey No.438/B of Kalappakulam
Village was 'Manibam' lands given to the second respondent temple for
performance of 'Vila pooja' as per T.D.No.196. The counter affidavit further
urges that lands given to the pattadhar for doing inam service of pooja
cannot be alienated without the permission of the Commissioner under
Section 34 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
6. It is further pleaded that a priest had alienated such a property and
it was a subject matter of a civil suit in Dr.V.Srinivasan Vs. Sri Sankara
Narayansamy Devasthanam, Sankarankovil and others. In a judgment
passed in S.A.No.652 of 2003 dated 16.07.2022, it was held that service
inam holder has got a right of permanent occupancy without the right of
alienation. Hence, the second respondent pleads that Section 22-A(1)(ii) of
the Registration Act applies and therefore, the refusal check slip is valid.
7. Mr.P.Rajesh, referring to the two judgments of this Court in
S.Ezilarasu Vs. the Sub Registrar and others, W.P.(MD).No.19971 of
2024 dated 16.10.2024 and M.Ramkumar Vs. the Sub Registrar and
another, W.P.(MD).No.8145 of 2024 dated 16.10.2024, argues that this
Court had quashed the proceedings in the above cases as the temple had not
substantiated its plea to the property and requests that the same be applied
to his case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 10:52:20 am )
8. I heard Mr.P.Rajesh for the petitioner, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned
Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.Rajesh
Kumar representing Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for the second respondent.
9. 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, had directed that if a religious institution
objects to the registration of a document, the Sub Registrar should conduct
a summary enquiry and decide whether the temple has a claim or the
executant of the document has a title over the same. It was made clear that
such a summary enquiry is only for the purpose of registration and it will
not affect the right of other parties to approach the Civil Court seeking for
declaration of their title and for such other reliefs as they may seek.
10. In M.Ram Kumar's case (cited supra), the subject matter of the
property is of the same village. The learned Judge, after referring to the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act of 1963, came to a conclusion that if the pattadhar fails to
render service, it is always open to the religious institution, which has a
right over the same, to issue a notice and seek resumption. However, he
made it clear that if the service is continuing, the pattadhar is entitled to
occupy the land permanently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 10:52:20 am )
11. In the present case, there has been an alienation earlier in the year
2010 in favour of the petitioner's mother. Today, the mother wants to settle
the property in favour of her son. The temple has not produced any evidence
before the Sub Registrar to show that it has title to the property. No records
had been produced before this Court also to substantiate the said plea.
Under Section 22-A(1)(ii), it is not sufficient if a mere objection letter is given
by the temple. It has to substantiate its case by producing some prima facie
material to show that it has a right over the property. That having not done
in this case, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
12. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is
quashed. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to register the
settlement deed executed by Vimala Kantharuby in favour of the writ
petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. It is made clear that mere registration of a document in favour
of the writ petitioner does not mean he has got title to the property. If the
temple is able to prove its title in a regularly instituted civil suit, registration
of the document will not stand in its way. Furthermore, as pleaded by
Mr.Rajesh Kumar for the second respondent, if this is a service inam
property, the temple always has a right to resume the land after following the
proper procedures.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 10:52:20 am )
13. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
28.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
To
The Sub-Registrar,
Sankarankovil,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 10:52:20 am )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 10:52:20 am )
