P. Ranjit Vs Kremmer Sandegran Foundation Pattukottai

Kremmer Sandegran Foundation Pattukottai, Represented By Its President, Abrahamdass, S/o. Late Dharmaraj, No. 16, St.Johns Church Complex, Rockins Road, Trichy -620001.

¶10

The Inspector General of Registration, O/o.The Inspector General of Registration, No. 100, Santhome High Road, Foreshore Estate, Chennai -600 028.

¶11

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Second Floor, Government Multipurpose Office Complex, Kajamalai, Tiruchirappalli -620020.

¶12

The District Registrar (Societies), District Registrar Office, Court Campus, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli -620 001.

¶13

Kremmer Sandegren Foundation Trust (Regn. No. 45/2016), Represented by its President, A.Kamaleshwaran, S/o. Arumugam, No. 70, Muduppaiah Colony, 4th Street, Veerakeralam, Coimbatore -641007.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

..Respondents

¶17

Prayer : WMP is filed to implead the proposed 5th Respondent viz., P. Ranjit, as 5th Respondent in W.P. No.27784/2025, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶18

For Petitioner: Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Advocate for Mr.P.Solomon Francis For Respondents: Mr.B.Vijay for M/s.Easwar Kumar and Rao for R1 Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP for R2 to R4 Mr.A.Raja for R5

¶19

ORDER

¶20

An order dated 31.07.2023 was issued by the first respondent restraining

¶21

the registration of conveyances relating to properties of the writ petitioner society. The said order and enquiry proceedings initiated under notice dated 06.05.2025 are challenged in the writ petition.

¶22

An individual asserting title to 2.31 acres of land in Kodaikanal, in respect of which the petitioner society asserts a rival claim, has sought to be impleaded in the writ petition.

¶23

Both learned senior counsel and learned counsel on record for the

¶24

impleading petitioner submitted that the society has indulged in fraudulent activities relating to inter alia the property claimed by the impleading petitioner.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

In particular, it is stated that proceedings were initiated before civil courts and before revenue authorities without joining the impleading petitioner as a party and that orders were obtained in that manner. Therefore, it is submitted that the impleading petitioner would be in a position to aid in the effective adjudication of all issues arising for consideration in the writ petition.

¶28

The request for impleadment is strongly opposed by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is an order prohibiting conveyances relating to the society’s property. Learned counsel points out that Section 77A of the Registration Act, 1908, which was subsequently struck down, has been cited in the impugned order. He points out that registering authorities cannot adjudicate on title. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the petitioner should approach the jurisdictional civil court or the jurisdictional revenue authorities in relation to the property over which he asserts a claim.

¶29

The order impugned in this writ petition pertains to immovable assets over which the petitioner society claims title. A rival claim in respect of one of the properties has been made by the impleading petitioner. Since the order has the effect of restraining the registration of conveyances, it would also have an impact on the rights of the impleading petitioner. In addition, it appears that the impleading petitioner would be in a position to place additional material on record and aid in the effective adjudication of the writ petition.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶33

kj

¶34