Venkatachari Vs The Sub Registrar

¶1

WP(MD)No.4782 of 2026 etc., batch

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on : 23.06.2026

¶4

Delivered on : 14.07.2026

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

W.P.(MD). Nos.4782, 19, 1117, 15415, 16307, 13773, 14530, 8500, 8984 and 61 of 2026, 21287, 21310, 21873, 27696, 31022, 35340, 21252, 16195 and 16665 of 2025

¶8

&

¶9

W.M.P(MD)Nos.10229 of 2026, 16450, 16466, 12150, 12266 and 24231 of 2025

¶10

W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2026:

¶11

Venkatachari ... Petitioner Vs

¶12

1.The Sub Registrar, Srirangam Sub Registrar Office, Srirangam, Trichy 620006.

¶13

2.Sriranganathaswamy Temple, Rep. by its Executive Officer/ Joint Commissioner, Srirangam, Trichy 620 006. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER :-

¶15

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 passed by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.833/2025, dated

¶16

Page No.1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

WP(MD)No.4782 of 2026 etc., batch

¶19

13.01.2026, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of Registration Act, 1908, and consequently direct the respondent to accept and register the settlement deed dated 30.04.2025 executed by the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakar

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban Government Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.M.Saravanan for R2

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

These writ petitions are filed to challenge the impugned refusal check slips.

¶24

These writ petitions are taken up together and disposed by this common order since the issue is one and the same.

¶25

When the petitioners presented the deeds for registration, the same were

¶26

refused as per Section 22A(1)(ii) of the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 2009, stating that a claim had been made by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, more specifically, Arulmigu Ranganathaswamy Thirukovil, Srirangam. The temple claims title to the property.

¶27

Page No.2 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

WP(MD)No.4782 of 2026 etc., batch

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the H.R. & C.E. Department, and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the temple.

¶31

During the course of the hearing, the Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. W. A. (MD) No. 862 of 2026 is placed before this Court. The said case also involves the very same larger extent of property which is dealt with and is in possession and enjoyment of numerous persons and they are dealing with the respective extents as on date through successive documents. The temple claims title. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 18.06.2026, considered the issue. In all these cases, private persons are said to have been vested with the titled through patta granted in settlement proceedings. The contention of the temple is that they are not in a position to produce the Order in their favour or their predecessors in title. To some portions of the property, the temple also claims to be possessed with title documents. The contention of the temple is that the predecessors-in-title were granted the properties as service inams and the same will not result in vesting of the title.

¶32

Page No.3 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

WP(MD)No.4782 of 2026 etc., batch

¶35

The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court considered the entire issue and held that, since several transactions had already taken place and several documents had been registered, the registrations need not be stopped unless the temple disputes the title over the subject properties by filing a suit before the competent civil Court.

¶36

In W. P. (MD) Nos. 20100 and 20093 of 2025, this Court set aside the refusal check slips and remanded the matter for an enquiry by the Sub-Registrar, as per the dictum in Sudha Ravi Kumar and another vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and others¹ . On appeal by the petitioners therein, by an Order in W. A (MD) Nos. 873 and 874 of 2026, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court considered the specific facts and circumstances of the instant case, set aside the order, and held that it is the temple that should be relegated to the civil Court, having regard to the large number of transactions that had taken place and the nature of the disputes raised with reference to title.

¶37

The Learned Counsel appearing for the temple though could not dispute the said legal position, wanted to place the factual aspects on record. Since the

¶38

1 (2017) 3 CTC 135

¶39

Page No.4 of 7

¶40

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

¶41

WP(MD)No.4782 of 2026 etc., batch

¶42

matters were pending, opportunities were granted earlier, no adjournment was granted and arguments were heard. Further opportunity was also given to place on record any factual issue differentiating any or all of these cases by way of counter affidavit and even though orders were reserved on 23/06/2026, this Court also waited till today. Nothing differentiating these cases from the earlier dicta of the Hon’ble Division Bench is placed before this Court.

¶43

Under these circumstances, I hold that the Orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench referred supra squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Only the temple has to approach the civil Court to establish its title to the property. Until such time, registration of these documents need not be refused.

¶44

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed on the following terms:

¶45

i. The impugned refusal check slips shall stand set aside;

¶46

ii. Within three weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, the petitioners can represent the document and upon such representation, the same shall be registered, if there is no other impediment;

¶47

iii. This Order or the registration will not preclude the

¶48

Page No.5 of 7

¶49

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

¶50

WP(MD)No.4782 of 2026 etc., batch

¶51

temple or the authorities from approaching the competent Civil Court asserting their title and upon such suit being laid, the title shall be determined on its own merits, and mere registration of these documents shall not prejudice the case of the temple;

¶52

iv. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

¶53

petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

14.07.2026

¶55

NCC : No sji

¶56

Note: Registry is directed to type the respective cause titles of the respective cases and issue the certified copy of the order.

¶57

Page No.6 of 7

¶58

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

¶59

WP(MD)No.4782 of 2026 etc., batch

¶60

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

¶61

sji

¶62

To The Sub Registrar, Srirangam Sub Registrar Office, Srirangam, Trichy 620006.

¶63

Pre-Delivery Order Made In W.P.(MD). Nos.4782, 19, 1117, 15415, 16307, 13773, 14530, 8500, 8984 and 61 of 2026, 21287, 21310, 21873, 27696, 31022, 35340, 21252, 16195 and 16665 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.10229 of 2026 and 24231 of 2025

¶64

DATED :14.07.2026

¶65

Page No.7 of 7

¶66

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

Venkatachari v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatachari v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatesh @ Venkatasubramaniam Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by, The Inspector of Police

Ambur Synod, Vs Mr. Punniyakotti and 5 others

Kasinathadurai Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

R.Krishnamoorthy Vs K.S.Chinnayan

V.Radhakrishnan Vs State Rep by its The Sub Inspector of Police

M/s. Vindhya Spinning Mills Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise