Allowed

T.N.Sreekumara Sarma, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jun 2022WP(C)/1547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by male members of a temple family against the District Registrar. The Court held that the Registrar lacks authority to insist that a family arrangement regarding internal temple management comply with the Society's Memorandum of Association for registration purposes.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Ext.P12 set aside. Direction to the District Registrar to adjudicate stamp duty without reference to the contents of the Society's Memorandum of Association within three weeks.

T.N.Sreekumara Sarma, Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1547 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 T.N.SREEKUMARA SARMA, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. LATE NARAYANAN ELAYATH, OORALAN/SHEBAIT, MANARCAD BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM RESIDING AT THANNIYIL ILLOM, MANARCADU KARA, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 019.

¶8

2 HARIDAS V., AGED 50 YEARS S/O. LATE T.N. VASUDEVAN ELAYATH, THANNIYIL ILLOM, MANARCADU KARA, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 019.

¶9

3 T.S. ARAVIND SARMA, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. T.N. SREEKUMARA SARMA, THANNIYIL ILLOM, MANARCADU KARA, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 019.

¶10

4 V. SREENIVASA SARMA, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. LATE T.N. VASUDEVAN ELAYATH, THANNIYIL ILLOM, MANARCADU KARA, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 019.

¶11

BY ADVS. SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA GEORGE CLEETUS MARGARET MAUREEN DROSE

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

WP(C) NO. 1547 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, (DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 3 THE ADDITIONAL SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM (ADDITIONAL), PIN-686 002.

¶17

SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶19

28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 1547 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶23

 WP(C) No.1547 OF 2022

¶24

 Dated this the 28thday of June, 2022

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents.
2. The petitioners are the male members of the Thanniyil
Illom of Manarcad Kara in Kottayam District. The Illam owns a
temple by name Manarcad Bhagavathy Devaswom. The
management of the temple was being carried out on the basis
of Ext.P1 which is stated to be an agreement for
administration of the Devaswom. The eldest male member was
acting as the 'ooralan' of the temple. At a later point of time, it
was felt that devotees could also be included in the
management of the temple, which resulted in the formation of
a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary,
Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955.
Ext.P9 is the Memorandum of Association of the said society.
The clause relating to the management of the society in Ext.P9
says that the senior most member of the Thanniyil Illam will be
the President of the society and if the members of the

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO. 1547 OF 2022

¶29

management committee form an opinion that the President is
either not keeping good health or is not actively participating
in the management, the next 'karanavar' of the Thanniyil Illam
approved by the committee can be appointed as the President
by the managing committee. The surviving family members
have later entered into a family arrangement regarding the
management of the Devaswom. A document was drawn up and
it was presented for registration. Since a doubt was
entertained, the document was referred to the District
Registrar, who is the 2nd respondent herein. By Ext.P12, the
District Registrar has observed that the document which has
been submitted is against Clause 8 of the Memorandum of
Association of the society and that the procedure prescribed in
Clause 8 is to be followed and the supporting documents to be
incorporated in the family arrangement that is sought to be
registered. The writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by
Ext.P12.

¶30

2. Heard Dr.Sebastian Champappilly on behalf of the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of
the respondents.

¶31

¶32

WP(C) NO. 1547 OF 2022

¶33

3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Registrar has no authority to insist on such a condition. It is
submitted that it is the statutory duty of the Registrar to
determine the stamp duty payable on the document to be
registered. It is submitted that registration is only an event
which notifies the factum of execution of the document and it
has nothing to do with the legality of the transaction. It is
further submitted that an enquiry into the title or the extent or
the nature of the title and such other related questions
referable to the title, are extraneous consideration as far as
the registration is concerned. Reliance is placed on several

¶34

judgments. It is not necessary to refer all those judgments for
the purpose of determining the case. The petitioners are
seeking to get registered the family arrangement regarding
the management of a temple which belongs to the family.
Ext.P9 is the Memorandum of Association of the society and it
cannot in any way determine the manner in which the family
arrangements should be drawn up. Clause 8 which provides a
right to the management committee of the society to
determine who should be the president cannot in any way
affect the family arrangement which shows a particular person

¶35

¶36

WP(C) NO. 1547 OF 2022

¶37

as the 'ooralan' of the temple. It is up to the society whether
they should accept the person mentioned in the family
arrangement as the 'ooralan' or not. That is an issue totally
alien as far as the registration of the document is concerned.
In view of the facts stated above the petitioners are entitled to
succeed in the writ petition.

¶38

4. The writ petition is hence allowed. There will be a
direction to the 2nd respondent to adjudicate the stamp duty
payable by the petitioners for registration of Ext.P10 family
arrangement. Ext.P12 is set aside and the 2nd respondent
should proceed to adjudicate the stamp duty without reference
to the contents of Ext.P9 Memorandum of Association of the
Society. Necessary orders shall be issued within three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

¶41

sn

¶42

The sentence beginning with “it is up to the society whether they should accept the person mentioned in the family arrangement as the 'ooralan' or not” in the 3^rd paragraph of the judgment dated 28.06.2022 in WP(C)No.1547/2022 is replaced by the sentence “it is up to the society whether they should accept the person mentioned in the family arrangement as the 'ooralan' as its President or not” as per order dated 21.07.2022 in R.P.650/2022 in WP(C)No.1547/2022.

¶43

Sd/Joint Registrar

¶44

WP(C) NO. 1547 OF 2022

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1547/2022

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.136/1972 OF ADDITIONAL SRO, KOTTAYAM DATED 01/11/1972. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF EXHIBIT P1. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.4/90 OF THE ADDITIONAL SRO, KOTTAYAM DATED 18/07/1973. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF EXHIBIT P4. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED ON 29/05/1990. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE SOCIETY TO THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM DATED 29/05/1990. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND THE BYLAWS OF THE SOCIETY. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY ARRANGEMENT/SETTLEMENT DATED 25/11/2021. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.BP163013 (BOOK NO.1631) ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM DATED 01/12/2021. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF VIJAYAPURAM PAKUTHY OF KOTTAYAM TALUK ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL ARCHIVES, FORT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, WITH CERTIFICATE NO.RMI-625/2021/CA, DATED 26.03.2021

¶49

WP(C) NO. 1547 OF 2022

¶50

¶51

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.01.2022 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF MANARCADU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE IN THE NAME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE THANNIYIL ILLOM OF MANARCADY KARA

¶52

Exhibit P 15 TRUE COPY OF THE MODEL FORM AS PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT.

¶53

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶54

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

T.N.Sreekumara Sarma, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.N.Sreekumara Sarma, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayakumari, Vs Mannarkkad Rural Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 922

Muhammed Ismail, Vs the Primary Co-Operative Agricultural

Ambujakshan Vs the Tahsildar

Reshmi G Pillai, Vs the Secretary

Devadas, Vs the Palakkad Municipality

Vahab M.M Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary to the Government