The High Court dismissed a writ petition claiming custom amendments Yogi Ramsuratkumar trust deed void and quash order. Court held petition is devoid of merits as registered deeds cannot be cancelled via representation. Dispensed with merits due to lack of jurisdiction to mediate registration.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH
W.P.No.9906 of 2003
S.Parthasarathy Petitioner
vs.
1.The Registrar of Trusts/ Joint Sub-Registrar-I Thiruvannamalai having office at Thiruvannamalai.
2.Yogi Ramsuratkumar Trust Thiruvannamalai by its Trustee Justice T.S.Arunachalam (Retired) S/o Sambasivam.
3.Sadhu Rangarajan 4.N.S.Mani 5.Prabha Sundararaman 6.T.S.Ramanathan 7.Justice T.S.Arunachalam 8.Mataji Devaki @ Ma.Devaki 9.Mother Vijayalakshmi @ Vijayalakshmi 10.Mother Rajalakshmi @ Rajalakshmi 11.Mother Vijayakka 12.R.Anjaneyalu
13.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai having office at Chennai.
14.Ma Devaki Veda Patasala Trust, by its Trustee Ma Devaki, D/o Sri Ranganathan Sudama Chengam Road, Sri Ramana Nagar, Thiruvannamalai. 15.Sri Visvanathan, Advocate, C/O Togi Ramsaratkumar Trust Agrarharawrrai, chingam Road, Thiruvannamalai 16.State Bank of India, Thiruvannamalai, by its Chief Manager, having office at Thiruvannamalai. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records and quash the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1807/03 dated 13.03.2003 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to cancel the amendments dated 02.03.1996 to the Trust Deed dated 11.05.1993 of Yogi Ramsuratkumar Trust, culminating in the Supplemental Trust Deed as registered by the 1st respondent on the ground of being arbitrary, ultravires, illegal, null and void and consequently direct the 1st respondent to delete the amendments from its records.
For petitioner Mr.R.Gururaj For R1 Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan,Spl.G.P. For R7 Mr.V.Ayyadurai,Senior Counsel/AAG for Mr.J.Rajaram For 13 Mr.S.Rajesh RR2to6,8to12 No Appearnce R14 and R15 ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records and quash the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1807/03 dated 13.03.2003 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to cancel the amendments dated 02.03.1996 to the Trust Deed dated 11.05.1993 of Yogi Ramsuratkumar Trust, culminating in the Supplemental Trust Deed as registered by the 1st respondent.
“2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. After going through the various averments made in the affidavit and apprehensions raised, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to highlight his grievance/apprehension before the first respondent, Registrar of Trusts/Joint Sub Registrar-I, Thiruvannamalai at the first instance since all those factual details cannot be gone into by this Court excercising jurisdition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After making such attempt, if the petitioner could not succeed, it is for him to approach this Court by way of writ petition. On this ground, without going into the grievance of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to highlight his grievance before the first respondent by way of proper representation. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.1443 of 2003 for stay is dismissed."
"Any deed once registered cannot be cancelled by the Registrar. The Registrar cannot decide the facts of the matter or decide the right, title or interest over any property covered under deed and cancel the same.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the Registrar cannot cancel the documents namely document No.41/96 and document No.1/99."
After obtaining the opinion, the Registrar has passed the impugned order dated 13.03.2003, rejecting the petitioner's representation, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.
the earlier order dated 13.01.2003 in W.P.No.1162 of 2003, wherein this Court has stated as follows:
“After making such attempt, if the petitioner could not succeed, it is for him to approach this Court by way of writ petition."
It is true that this Court has stated so in the said order. But, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court cannot confer jurisdiction by judicial orders, when jurisdiction is otherwise not vested with an authority. For example, this Court cannot, in a writ petition, direct a Magistrate to entertain civil suits or deal with Sessions cases.
In the result, this petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.
+2 CC to Mr. R. Gurudas, Advocate sr 2707 +2 CC to Mr. V. Ayyadurai, Advocate sr 2390 +1 CC to Mr.P.D. Audikesavalu, Advocate sr 2768 +1 CC to Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, Advocate sr 2728 +1 CC to Mr. S. Rajesh, Advocate sr 2767
NRJK(CO)
sp/2/2
W.P.No.9906 of 2003
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can approach this Court by way of writ petition directly without first exhausting remedies with the Registrar of Trusts.
Whether a validly registered supplemental Trust Deed can be annulled by a mere representation to the Registrar.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Parthasarathy
Registrar of Trusts / Joint Sub-Registrar-I Thiruvannamalai
Yogi Ramsuratkumar Trust
Sadhu Rangarajan
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
Ma Devaki Veda Patasala Trust
P.N. Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
