Dismissed

Indirani v. the Commissioner

Madras HC14 Jul 2023WP/20802/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Sub Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed. The Court held that the Registering Authority correctly relied on the temple department's objection under Section 22-A, as it lacks power to adjudicate title disputes, which must be resolved in a competent civil forum.

What did the court decide?

No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Indirani Vs the Commissioner — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.20802 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.20802 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.20181 of 2023

1.Indirani

2.Sumathi

3.Madheswari

4.Shyamala

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 600 034.

¶16

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Dharmarajar Koil, Koothapadi, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶17

3.The Sub Registrar, Pennagaram Town and Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.20802 of 2023

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the 3 rd respondent namely the Sub Registrar of Pennagaram dated 29.10.2018 in reference 4 No.TP/48662925/18 so far as it relates to the sale deed dated 29.10.2018 executed by the petitioners in favour of Madhaiyan, son of Madhaiyan in respect of an extent of 12 cents in S.No.733, Koothapadi Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District and consequently direct the 3 rd respondent namely the Sub Registrar of Pennagaram to receive and register the said sale deed dated 29.10.2018.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.N.E.A.Dinesh For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate [For H.R.&.C.E] For R3 : Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The order dated 29.10.2018 issued by the Registering Authority / Sub Registrar refused to register the document presented by the writ petitioners is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶25

The petitioners state that they are the owners of the subject property

¶26

described in the present writ petition. They presented sale deed for

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.20802 of 2023

¶30

registration and the Sub Registrar issued the impugned order stating that there is an objection from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, stating that the subject property belongs to the Temple. Therefore, the Sub Registrar cannot entertain registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Though the order has been passed in the year 2018, the petitioners were not vigilant enough to move the present writ petition and kept the matter for about 5 years and today it is posted for admission.

¶31

This Court has considered the issue relating to the objections raised

¶32

by the religious institution under Section 22-A of the Registration act in W.P.No.13718 of 2023 dated 20.06.2023 and the relevant paragraphs are under:

¶33

“ 10 . The only questions, which are to be considered is whether the objections raised by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board is in consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act or not?. Whether the Registering the Authority has notified the submissions under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, in a proper manner or not?

¶34

11. Section 22-A of the Registration Act,

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.20802 of 2023

¶38

enumerates -Refusal to register certain documentsand Sub Clause (iv) of Sub Section (1) to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, stipulates that ?of Wakf which are under the superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board established under the Wakf Act, 1995 (Central Act 43 of 1995). Further Section 22-A denotes that ?Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Registering Authority shall refuse to register any of the documents stipulated in Sub Section (1). Therefore, the Registering Authority has no option but to refuse to register the documents, if those documents are falling under anyone of the clauses stipulated in Sub Section (1) to Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

¶39

13. The Power of Judicial Review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be expanded for the purpose of adjudication of the disputes of civil nature. All such disputes are to be resolved based on the documents and evidences available on record and before the Competent Forum. Merely drawing an inference based on the revenue documents, title cannot be settled and in the event of passing any such order, it would cause prejudice on either of the parties.

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.20802 of 2023

¶43

17. As far as the powers of the Registering Authority under Section 22-A is concerned, the Registering Authority has acted in consonance with the provisions of the Act and based on the objections raised by the Wakf Board. Once the objections are filed by the Religious Institutions and/or by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the Registering Authority has no objection. Since the language of the word used in the Section 22-A is 'shall', the Registering Authority has no power of adjudication on these disputed issues of civil nature. Therefore, they acted in accordance with Section 22-A of the Act and if the parties are claiming any right, they have to establish their case before the Competent Forum. Thus this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the stand taken by the Registering Authority based on the objection submitted by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum.”

¶44

In the present case, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶45

Department raised an objection that not to entertain a registration in respect of the subject properties on the ground that the said property belonging to the Page 5 of 7

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.No.20802 of 2023

¶48

Temple. Therefore, the petitioners have to approach the Competent Civil

¶49

Court of Law, if at all he is of the opinion that they are the title holders.

¶50

However, the Registering Authority cannot adjudicate such disputed issues with reference to the title, ownership or otherwise.

¶51

With these observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No

¶52

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶53

14.07.2023

¶54

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶55

¶56

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai – 600 034.

¶57

2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Dharmarajar Koil, Koothapadi, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶58

3.The Sub Registrar, Pennagaram Town and Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶59

Page 6 of 7

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P.No.20802 of 2023

¶62

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶63

Jeni

¶64

W.P.No.20802 of 2023

¶65

14.07.2023

¶66

Page 7 of 7

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Indirani v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indirani v. the Commissioner

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

S.Sakthivel, Vs The Inspector General of

K.Krishnasamy, Vs The District Collector

Annibal Joseph Nehru Vs Union of India

D.Magalingam Vs the District Collector

Suguna Vs The District Collector

Selvambal Vs Durairaj