Allowed

Shajahan M v. The District Registrar

Madras HC24 Mar 2026WP(MD)/35505/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Sub-Registrar's refusal check slip issued on temple objections to a settlement deed. Following Division Bench directions in Sudha Ravi Kumar, the Court set aside the refusal slip, remitted the matter to the District Registrar for enquiry with notice to both sides within ten weeks, leaving statutory appeal open.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip set aside; matter remitted to first respondent for enquiry per Division Bench directions, to be completed within 10 weeks.

Shajahan M Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.35505 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 24.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.35505 of 2025

M.Shajahan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Registrar, O/o.The District Registrar, Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Sub-Registrar, Tallakulam Taluk, Madurai District.

¶12

3.Sree Sooravalli Sbbaier Charities, Rep by its Hereditary Trustee, M S Sankaran @ M S Sankar, No.I-13, Shanthi Sadan, Melakkal Main Road, Kochadai, Madurai. ...Respondents

¶13

4.The Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareshwarar Thirukovil, Madurai. ...Proposed 4^th respondent (R4 is impleaded vide order dated 24.03.2026 in W.M.P(MD)No.258 of 2025)

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.35505 of 2025

¶18

relating to the refusal check slip issued by the second respondent vide Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/Tallakulam/58/2025 dated 28.11.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the second respondent to register the settlement deed dated 25.11.2025 presented by the petitioner qua the land to an extent of 4790 sq.ft comprised in old S.No.115/3, Resurvey No.115/3B, Tallakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Mohammed Suhail, for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 & R2 :Mr.F.Deepak, Special Government Pleader For R3 :Mr.R.Muralai

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is filed for a certiorarified mandamus challenging the order dated 28.11.2025.

¶22

2.It can be seen that upon objection received on behalf of the Temple

¶23

and the HR&CE authorities, the document presented by the petitioner was refused to be registered. 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, Chennai and others , reported in (2017) 3 CTC 135 , the directions in paragraph 25 are extracted hereunder for ready reference.

¶24

“25.In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.35505 of 2025

¶28

are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with the following directions:

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD)No.35505 of 2025

¶38

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

¶39

(i)The impugned refusal check slip dated 28.11.2025 shall stand set

¶40