S.Bhuvaneshwari v. The Inspector General Of Registration
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.NO.16125 OF 2019 [Video Conferencing] S.Bhuvaneshwari ... Petitioner/Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai.
2.
The District Registrar, 3.
The Joint Sub Registrar No.II, 4.
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visweswara Swamy and Veeraragava Perumal Temple, Easwaran Kovil Street, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 27.05.2019 vide proceedings in No.RFL/2 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and directing third respondent to register and release sale deed dated 27.05.2019 to the petitioner within the time bound manner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Dilli Kumar For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate For 4th Respondent : Mrs.G.Sumithra
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with the order dated 27.05.2019 of the third respondent/Joint Sub Registrar No.II, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District in .RFL/2 whereby the third respondent appears to have issued a cheque slip refusing registration of a document presented by the petitioner herein for registration.
2. The nature of the document which was presented was a sale deed. The petitioner claims that the property measuring 1200 sq.ft., in S.No.130, present T.S.No.3, T.S.Ward No.L, Block No.4, P.Chinnasamy Gounder Layout, as per Layout Plan Site No.84, Mangalam Road, Ward No.16, South Tiruppur Taluk, Tiruppur District, originally belonged to one Madhuravani and Rukamaniammal. They had purchased the same by sale deed dated 14.03.1973 and thereafter, executed a partition deed.
3. Rukmaniammal became the absolute owner of the property and executed a sale deed to one Jaganathan by a registered sale deed. The said Jaganathan constructed a house. He also got the revenue records mutated in his name. He and his family were living in the said property and he died on 24.05.2015. He left behind his legal heirs. The petitioner herein had purchased the property from the legal heirs by sale deed dated 27.05.2019 which was presented before the third respondent for registration.
4. The necessary stamp duty had been paid and the petitioner had committed to pay the registration charges. However, the third respondent had refused to registration claiming that an objection had been laid by the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Visweswara Swamy and Veeraragava Perumal Temple, Easwaran Kovil Street at Tiruppur. This necessitated the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition.
5. A counter has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent/Executive Officer of the said temple, who claimed title to the lands where the property was situated. It is stated that they had therefore, to protect the property, given necessary objections to the Joint Sub Registrar No.II, Tiruppur/ third respondent.
6. I am quite fortunate that both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents have presented before me a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court pronounced on 05.04.2017 in a series of Writ Petitions and which Judgment has also been reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135 [ Sudha Ravi Kumar Vs. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner, Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Development, Chennai and others].
7. In all these Writ Petitions, the issue was also the same, namely, whether the Sub Registrar, before whom a document is presented for registration can lawfully refuse to register it in view of a protest petition filed on behalf of a claimant that the land relating to which the document had been presented belonged to the claimant. After elaborate discussion, the Division Bench held as follows:- "25. In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with the following directions:
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs."
8. I would also place a similar direction on the petitioner and the fourth respondent, namely, to appear before the third respondent whenever notice is issued and present their respective documents relating to their respective claims for title and thereafter, the third respondent is directed to consider and pass necessary orders.
9. Let the third respondent conclude the enquiry within a period of six weeks from the date when the document is presented once again by the petitioner, which presentation should again be by following due process by applying online.
10. With the above said direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Vsg To 1.
The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Pattinapakkam, Chennai.
2.
The District Registrar,
3.
The Joint Sub Registrar No.II, 4.
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Visweswara Swamy and Veeraragava Perumal Temple, EaswaranKovil Street, +1cc to Mr.R.Dilli Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.40621 +1cc to Mrs.G.Sumithra, Advocate, S.R.No.40488 W.P.NO.16125 OF 2019 JPL(CO) PBS/20/09/2021