Disposed

Rajalakshmi. R v. The Commissioner

Madras HC15 Apr 2021WP(MD)/1116/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition where the Sub Registrar refused to register a sale deed pending a No Objection Certificate from a temple authority. Upholding prior Division Bench directions, the court directed the Registrar to admit the document for summary enquiry and pass an order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the third respondent to conduct a summary enquiry within four weeks and make an order on the registration of the sale deed.

Rajalakshmi. R Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.1116 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.04.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1116 of 2021

¶7

1.R.Rajalakshmi 2.T.Sridharan 3.T.Sampath Kumar ...Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Sri Renganathaswamy Temple, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Srirangam, Trichy District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Srirangam, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to register the sale deed dated 09.04.2010 pending on the file of the third respondent in Doc.No.P-68/2010 without insisting 'No Objection Certificate' from the second respondent and release the same forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vinoth Singh Misra For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar Special Government Pleader For 3rd Respondent : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh Additional Government Pleader

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1/4

¶14

W.P.(MD).No.1116 of 2021

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to register the sale deed dated 09.04.2010 without insisting for the 'No Objection Certificate' from the second respondent.

¶17

2 . The case of the petitioners is that the subject property originally belonged to one Rengasamy and his sons and the same was purchased by one Kunjammal by virtue of a sale deed registered as Document No.391/1970. The said Kunjammal executed a 'Will' in favour of her son and she died in the year 2009. The legatee under the 'Will' wanted to sell the property in favour of the petitioners and a sale deed was also executed in favour of the petitioners on 09.04.2010. When the same was presented for registration, the third respondent refused to register the document and was insisting for 'No Objection Certificate' from the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

¶18

Heard Mr.M.Vinoth Singh Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Sathyasingh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the third respondent.

¶19

4.The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the directions given by the Division Bench in Sudha Ravi Kumar Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai 34 and others reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135 . The relevant portion in the judgment is extracted hereunder :

¶20

"25. In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with the following directions:

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

2/4

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.1116 of 2021

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs."

¶30

5.In view of the above directions issued by the Division Bench, it is left open to the third respondent to conduct an enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioners and the second respondent in line with paragraph No.25 (extracted above) and take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

6.The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the third respondent along with a copy of this order.

¶32

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶35

// True Copy //

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶38

3/4

¶39

W.P.(MD).No.1116 of 2021

¶40

rm Note In view of the present lock down owing : to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Sri Renganathaswamy Temple, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Srirangam, Trichy District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Srirangam, Trichy District. +1 CC to M/s.AGP ( SR-15985[F] dated 16/04/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.D.SELVANAYAGAM, Advocate ( SR-15943[F] dated 16/04/2021 W.P.(MD).No.1116 of 2021 15.04.2021 RK (28.04.2021) 4P 6C

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

4/4

Rajalakshmi. R v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajalakshmi. R v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sultan Badsa.M.a Vs The District Collector

Dorothy Manimuthu Vs the Secretary to the Govt

Muthumari Vs the Thasildar

Prasanna Vs the Director

Thirumalai Nambi at Murugesan Vs the Thasildar

Thiruvavadudurai Adhinam Vs the Member Secretary /