Disposed¶37

A.Maheshwari v. the Joint Sub-Registrar-Ii

Madras HC20 Mar 2025WP/9366/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus for registration of sale deed dated 29.10.2024 refused by Joint Sub-registrar-II, Kallakurichi on the ground of wakf property claim communicated by Tamil Nadu Wakf Board; Madras HC directs summary enquiry per Division Bench guidelines in Sudha Ravi Kumar v. Special Commissioner, 2017 (3) CTC 135 para 25, hearing petitioner and Wakf Board, decision within four weeks; Article 226; petition disposed, no costs; counsel: I.Kowser Nissar (petitioners), K.Karthikeyan (Govt. Advocate, R1-R3), T.Saikrishnan (Standing Counsel, R4).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the 1st respondent to conduct a summary enquiry per the Division Bench guidelines in Sudha Ravi Kumar (2017 (3) CTC 135, para 25) after hearing the petitioner and the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, and to take a decision within four weeks; no costs.

A.Maheshwari Vs the Joint Sub-Registrar-Ii — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the 1st respondent (Joint Sub-registrar-II, Kallakurichi) should register and release the sale deed dated 29.10.2024 executed by the petitioners, notwithstanding the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board's claim and communication that the property is wakf property.

¶24

Court's answer

The Court directed the 1st respondent (Joint Sub-registrar-II, Kallakurichi) to follow the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar and another Vs. The Special Commissioner and others, 2017 (3) CTC 135 (paragraph 25), conduct a summary enquiry after affording opportunity to the petitioner and the 4th respondent (Tamil Nadu Wakf Board), and take a decision within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh J.), WP No. 9366 of 2025, decided 20-03-2025: Four petitioners from Kallakurichi district sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing respondents 1 and 2 to register and release a sale deed dated 29.10.2024. The Joint Sub-registrar-II had refused registration because the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board claimed the property as wakf property and had communicated that claim to the Sub-registrar. The Court did not adjudicate the ownership dispute; it directed the 1st respondent to follow the guidelines issued by the Division Bench in Sudha Ravi Kumar and another Vs. The Special Commissioner and others, 2017 (3) CTC 135 (paragraph 25), conduct a summary enquiry affording opportunity to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, and take a decision within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order. Petition disposed of with these directions; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 9366 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20-03-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

WP No. 9366 of 2025

¶7

¶8

A.Maheshwari W/o.P. Anbarasu, Door No.109, Therku Theru, Madoor Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District Rep By Her Power Agents.

¶9

2.K.Krishna Moorthy S/o. Karuththaan, Door No.9641, Kaattukottai, Siruvangur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶10

3.R.S.M.Raja

¶11

S/o.Mani, Door No.16/24, Kariappa Nagar, Emapper Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶12

4.P.Sakthivel

¶13

S/o.Pakkiri Samy, Door No. 16/4, Kariappa Nagar, Emapper Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶14

Petitioner(s)

¶15

¶16

The Joint Sub-registrar-ii Sub- Registrar Office, Kallakurichi.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2.The District Registrar

¶18

WP No. 9366 of 2025

¶19

O/o.The District Registrar Kallakurichi District.

¶20

3.The Inspector General Of Registration Office Of The Inspector General Of Registration , Santhome, Chennai.

¶21

4.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Rep By Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Jaffar Sarang Street , Vallal Seethakadi Nagar, Chennai-01.

¶22

Respondent(s)

¶23

PRAYER

¶24

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to register and release the sale deed dated 29.10.2024 executed by the

¶25

petitioner, after hearing the petitioner and conducting enquiry as laid down by the honble Division Bench of this court in 2017 (3) CTC 135 of 5.4.2017 in the case of Sudha Rani Kumar VS Special Commissioner and pass orders.

¶26

For Petitioner(s): I.Kowser Nissar For Respondent: Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.T.Saikrishnan, Standing counsel for R4

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to register the sale deed dated

¶29

WP No. 9366 of 2025

¶30

29.10.2024 executed by the petitioner.

¶31

Heard Mr.I.Kowser Nissar, learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioner and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.T.Saikrishnan, learned Standing counsel for 4^th respondent.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that they are the absolute owner of the subject property and whereas, a claim was made by the Wakf that the property belongs to the Wakf and accordingly, a communication has been issued by the 4^th respondent to the 1^st respondent. When the sale deed was presented for registration, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that the property in question is a wakf property.

¶34

In the considered view of this Court, the 1^st respondent can follow the guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court in [Sudha Ravi Kumar and another Vs. The Special Commissioner and others] reported in 2017 3 CTC 135 (paragraph 25) and conduct the summary enquiry after affording opportunity to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent and a decision shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 9366 of 2025

¶37