Sree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust Vs T.N.Sirajudeen

Rev.Aplw.(MD)Nos.82 to 84 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserving the Order	Date of Pronouncing the Order
17.06.2026	25.06.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Rev.Aplw.(MD)Nos.82, 83 and 84 of 2026 in W.P.(MD)Nos.9847, 9848 and 9846 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13311, 13312, 13313, 13315, 13316 & 13317 of 2026

¶8

Sree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust, Represented by its Managing Trustee, A.Senthilkumar, S/o.Arumugasamy, Having Office at:

¶9

M.P.S. Steel Castings Pvt., Ltd., No.107-A, Sengupta Street, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore – 641 609.

¶10

... Petitioner in all the Review Applications

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.T.N.Sirajudeen, S/o. T.S.Naina Mohammed, Represented by his Power Agent, V.Sasikumar.

¶13

2.The Joint Sub-Registrar No.III, Joint-III Sub-Registration Office, Town Hall, Tiruchirappalli-620 002.

¶14

... Respondents in all the Review Applications

¶15

Prayer: Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos. 9847, 9848 and 9846 of 2026, dated 08.04.2026.

¶16

Page No.1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

Rev.Aplw.(MD)Nos.82 to 84 of 2026

¶19

For Petitioner in all the Review Applications : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian For R1 in all the Review Applications : Mr.Shangar Murali For R2 in all the Review Applications : Mr.R.Parthiban Standing Counsel

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

These review applications are filed by the petitioner/third party seeking to review the identical orders passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.9846 to 9648 of 2026. By identical orders dated 08.04.2026, this Court set aside the refusal check slips issued by the Sub-Registrar and directed registration of the documents that are presented by the First Respondent herein.

¶22

2 . It is now contended by the petitioner that it is claiming title in respect of

¶23

the property. The first respondent himself had donated the property to the trust by a registered settlement deed dated 16.02.2007. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. As a matter of fact, sale agreements were entered into by the petitioner trust. 16 years after the property was converted, the first respondent had filed O.S.No.241 of 2023, on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, for the reliefs to declare the said Document No.443/2007 as revoked and for recovery of possession and permanent injunction and the

¶24

Page No.2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

Rev.Aplw.(MD)Nos.82 to 84 of 2026

¶27

same is pending. While so, now the above documents were presented and this Court without hearing the review petitioners erroneously granted the order and hence, the review applications.

¶28

3 . The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit in the present round, since the lis is only between the Sub-Registrar and the first respondent, the review petitioner is not added as a party. As per Mohammedan Law, the first respondent is entitled to revoke the gift. He had originally gifted the property as the petitioner trust proposed to start a school. Subsequently, he found that the petitioner trust is indulging in real estate and wanted to sell the property and therefore, he had exercised his right under personal law and unilaterally cancelled the gift and the suit itself is filed only by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to present the document. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.Gopi vs. The Sub-Registrar and others¹ , the Sub-Registrar has no powers to refuse the registration and the orders passed by this Court does not require any review.

¶29

4 . I have considered the rival submissions made on either side. It must be

¶30

seen that, with reference to the property, there are objections by the writ petitioner, and when the earlier writ petitions were filed, the review petitioner

¶31

1 (2026) 2 SCC 696 : 2025 INSC 462

¶32

Page No.3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

Rev.Aplw.(MD)Nos.82 to 84 of 2026

¶35

was very much made a party. Under the circumstances, this Court ought to have

¶36

heard the review petitioner, as they were the defendant in the suit and had been objecting to the registration of the documents. The order of refusal is an order in their favour. The same is an error on the face of the record, something that goes to the root of the matter, as the order was passed without hearing the necessary

¶37

party. The petitioner contributed to the same inasmuch as they did not add the review petitioner as the respondent in the writ petitions. Even in such cases, this Court insists on the impleadment of the party, who would otherwise be affected by allowing the writ petitions, which was also missed out in the instant case.

¶38

5 . In view of the above, the Review Applications are allowed on the following terms :

¶39

(i) The orders dated 08.04.2026 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.9646,

¶40

9647 and 9648 of 2026 stands recalled and the Writ Petitions are restored to file.

¶41

(ii) The Review Applicant stands suo motu impleaded as the second respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.9646, 9647 and 9648 of 2026 and the writ petitions are heard afresh.

¶42

(iii) No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions

are closed.

25.06.2026

NCC : No

Page No.4 of 6

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