Allowed¶40

Saraswathi v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC23 Jun 2026WP(MD)/17493/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P(MD)No.17493 of 2026; Madurai Bench, Madras High Court; certiorarified mandamus; refusal check slip 18.02.2026; Sub Registrar Palayamkottai; registration of sale deed refused; Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple; HR&CE Department; Section 22-A Registration Act; Sudha Ravi Kumar (2017) 3 CTC 135 paragraph 25 directions; remand for enquiry; statutory appeal; 10 weeks timeline; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition ordered: impugned refusal check slip dated 18.02.2026 set aside; matter remitted to the first respondent to conduct an enquiry as directed by the Division Bench, both sides free to produce title proof; aggrieved party to file appeal in accordance with law; exercise to be completed within 10 weeks from receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy; no costs. ¶40

Saraswathi Vs The Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent's refusal to register the petitioners' sale deed dated 18.02.2026, on the sole ground that the subject property belongs to Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple under the control of the HR&CE Department, was sustainable, and what procedure (per the Division Bench directions in Sudha Ravi Kumar, (2017) 3 CTC 135) governs such refusals.

¶25

Court's answer

The question of refusing registration on the ground that the property belongs to a temple under the HR&CE Department is no longer res integra, being governed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar ((2017) 3 CTC 135); this Court extracts and adopts the directions in paragraph 25 of that judgment.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The impugned refusal check slip dated 18.02.2026 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent, who shall conduct an enquiry as directed by the Division Bench, with both sides entitled to produce proof in respect of their title.

¶43

Key takeaways

The aggrieved party shall file an appeal in accordance with law; the remand exercise shall be completed within 10 weeks from receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy; no costs.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Sub Registrar's refusal check slip dated 18.02.2026 (RFL/No.1 Joint Sub-Registrar Palayamkottai/28/2026) declining registration of a sale deed dated 18-02-2026 executed by petitioners 1 to 4 in favour of petitioner 6, on the ground that the property belongs to Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple under HR&CE Department control. Held, following the Division Bench in Sudha Ravi Kumar v. Special Commissioner, HR&CE, (2017) 3 CTC 135 (paragraph 25 directions extracted), the issue is no longer res integra: the refusal slip is set aside and the matter remitted to the first respondent to hold an enquiry as directed by the Division Bench, with both sides permitted to adduce title proof; the aggrieved party may pursue a statutory appeal; the exercise is to conclude within 10 weeks of receipt of the web copy of the order without awaiting the certified copy; no costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.17493 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 23.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.17493 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.12958 of 2026

¶7

Saraswathi

¶8

Thaiyalnayagi

¶9

Subhaa

¶10

Senthil Nathan

¶11

S.Subramanian

¶12

Jecintha David Koilpatti

¶13

... Petitioners

¶14

Vs.

¶15

The Sub Registrar, Sub-Registrar Joint No.1, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶16

The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. ...Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in RFL/No.1 Joint Sub-Registrar Palayamkottai/28/2026 dated 18-02-2026 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register the sale deed dated 18-02-2026 executed by the petitioners 1 to 4 in favour

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(MD)No.17493 of 2026

¶21

of the 6th petitioner through their power agent without insisting NOC from the 2nd respondent within the time fixed by this Honble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

¶22

For Petitioners :Mr.N.Vignesh For Respondents :Mr.S.Vashik Ali, Government Standing Counsel

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed for a certiorarified mandamus challenging the order dated 18.02.2026.

¶25

2.It can be seen that the document presented by the petitioner was refused to be registered by the first respondent on the ground that the subject property belongs to Arulmigu Arunachaleswarar Temple under the control of HR&CE Department. The issue is no longer res Integra is undiscovered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court made in Sudha Ravi Kumar and another vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Department,

¶26

Chennai and others , reported in (2017) 3 CTC 135 , the directions in paragraph 25 are extracted hereunder for ready reference.

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.17493 of 2026

¶30

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

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.17493 of 2026

¶39

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

¶40

3.In view thereof, this writ petition is ordered on the following terms:

¶41

(i)The impugned refusal check slip dated 18.02.2026 shall stand set

¶42

aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the first respondent.

¶43

(ii)The first respondent shall conduct an enquiry as directed by the Division Bench and both sides will be entitled to produce such proof in respect of their title and depending on the final orders that are passed.

¶44

(iii)The aggrieved party shall file an appeal in accordance with law.

¶45

(iv)The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 10

¶46

weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order. without waiting for the certified copy of the order. No costs.

23.06.2026

NCC:Yes/No rgm