Madras High Court
F.Prince Vino vs M/S.Marthandam Educational And ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.No.2844 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.A.No.2844 of 2025
and CMP No.23010 of 2025
F.Prince Vino
.... Appellant
V.
1. M/s.Marthandam Educational and Charitable Trust,
rep. By its President, Dr.T.James Wilson
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
3. The District Registrat,
Marthandam Registration District,
Integrated Complex,
Vettuvani, Marthandam Post,
Kanyakumari District – 629 165.
4. The Joint Sub-Registrar – II,
Marthandam,
Integrated Complex,
Vettuvani, Marthandam Post,
______________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
W.A.No.2844 of 2025
Kanyakumari District – 629 165.
.... Respondents
Prayer:Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against order dated 28.08.2025 made in W.P.No.31403 of 2025 on the file
of this Court.
For Appellant :Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
For Respondents :Mr.Arun for
M/s.Aakash Johannes Russel – R1
Mr.P.Harish
Government Advocate – R2 to R4
JUDGMENT
Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.
Appeal by the 4th respondent, who got impleaded himself in the
pending W.P.No.31403 of 2025. The present appeal is filed on two
grounds. First, regarding the Presidential order of the year 2004 conferring
territorial jurisdiction to the Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai
and the locus of the Writ Petitioner presenting the document in dispute for
registration before the Sub-Registrar, Marthandam.
2. The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
seeking Certiorarified Mandamus presented before the Principal Bench of
the Madras High Court and heard by a learned single Judge. One of the
respondent, being the Inspector General of Registration, there is an apparent
territorial jurisdiction conferred with principal seat to entertain and hear the
Writ Petition.
3. Moreover, the question of jurisdiction not raised by the appellant
herein even though he had volunteered to get himself impleaded as 4 th
respondent in a pending matter and participated in the proceedings before
the learned single Judge.
4. Insofar as the second ground regarding the locus of the Writ
Petitioner presenting the document before the Sub-Registrar, Marthandam,
we find that the learned single Judge, after hearing both sides and
considering the contentious issues between them, particularly the Writ
Petitioner and the 4th respondent/appellant herein, had passed the following
order:
9. The learned counsel appearing for the newly
impleaded party/4th respondent would submit that the 4th
respondent has not filed protest letter and sought liberty to
file the same. It is open to the 4th respondent to file its
protest petition before the 3rd respondent, if any such
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
protest letter is submitted, the same would be considered by
the concerned respondents on its merits and in accordance
with law, after furnishing a copy of the same to the
petitioner and after affording an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner and 4th respondent.
10. In view thereof, this impugned order dated
21.05.2025 is set aside. It is open to the petitioner/Trust to
re-present the deed of amendment of the Trust and on such
re-presentation being made, the same would be registered,
if it is otherwise in order.'
5. The appellant herein, strangely, after filing this appeal on
10.09.2025 had simultaneously filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai
Bench, which has been taken up as W.P.(MD) No.24677 of 2025, which
came to be disposed of by the learned single Judge on 11.09.2025.
6. The sum and substance of the litigation between the parties is
regarding the management of the Marthandam Educational and Charitable
Trust and the deed of amendment presented by the Writ Petitioner need to
be registered or not.
7. The learned single Judge, in his order, relying upon the judgment
of this Court passed in R.Ashokkan V. Sub-Registrar and another reported
in 2025 (1) CWC 692 has given liberty to the Writ Petitioner to re-present
the deed of amendment of the Trust. Liberty was also given to the appellant
herein to file a protest petition and if any such protest petition is submitted,
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
the same would be considered on merits and in accordance with law.
8. The order passed by the learned single Judge neither suffers lack
of jurisdiction nor lack of due consideration of merits. Hence, we find the
Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. No
costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
(Dr.G.J.J.) & (M.S.K.J.)
19.11.2025
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
sl
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
Sl
2. The District Registrar,
Marthandam Registration District,
Integrated Complex,
Vettuvani, Marthandam Post,
Kanyakumari District – 629 165.
3. The Joint Sub-Registrar – II,
Marthandam,
Integrated Complex,
Vettuvani, Marthandam Post,
Kanyakumari District – 629 165.
19.11.2025
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/11/2025 06:36:03 pm )
