F.Prince Vino v. M/S.Marthandam Educational And Charitable Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 19.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and CMP No.23010 of 2025 F.Prince Vino .... Appellant V.

1. M/s.Marthandam Educational and Charitable Trust, rep. By its President, Dr.T.James Wilson

2. The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

3. The District Registrat, Marthandam Registration District, Integrated Complex, Vettuvani, Marthandam Post,

4. The Joint Sub-Registrar - II, Marthandam, Integrated Complex, Vettuvani, Marthandam Post,

.... Respondents Prayer:Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order dated 28.08.2025 made in W.P.No.31403 of 2025 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant :Mr.Avinash Wadhwani For Respondents :Mr.Arun for M/s.Aakash Johannes Russel - R1 Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate - R2 to R4

J U D G M E N T

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

Appeal by the 4th respondent, who got impleaded himself in the pending W.P.No.31403 of 2025. The present appeal is filed on two grounds. First, regarding the Presidential order of the year 2004 conferring territorial jurisdiction to the Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai and the locus of the Writ Petitioner presenting the document in dispute for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Marthandam.

2. The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking Certiorarified Mandamus presented before the Principal Bench of the Madras High Court and heard by a learned single Judge. One of the respondent, being the Inspector General of Registration, there is an apparent territorial jurisdiction conferred with principal seat to entertain and hear the Writ Petition.

3. Moreover, the question of jurisdiction not raised by the appellant herein even though he had volunteered to get himself impleaded as 4th respondent in a pending matter and participated in the proceedings before the learned single Judge.

4. Insofar as the second ground regarding the locus of the Writ Petitioner presenting the document before the Sub-Registrar, Marthandam, we find that the learned single Judge, after hearing both sides and considering the contentious issues between them, particularly the Writ Petitioner and the 4th respondent/appellant herein, had passed the following order:

9. The learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded party/4th respondent would submit that the 4th respondent has not filed protest letter and sought liberty to file the same. It is open to the 4th respondent to file its protest petition before the 3rd respondent, if any such

protest letter is submitted, the same would be considered by the concerned respondents on its merits and in accordance with law, after furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and 4th respondent.

10. In view thereof, this impugned order dated 21.05.2025 is set aside. It is open to the petitioner/Trust to re-present the deed of amendment of the Trust and on such re-presentation being made, the same would be registered, if it is otherwise in order.'

5. The appellant herein, strangely, after filing this appeal on 10.09.2025 had simultaneously filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench, which has been taken up as W.P.(MD) No.24677 of 2025, which came to be disposed of by the learned single Judge on 11.09.2025.

6. The sum and substance of the litigation between the parties is regarding the management of the Marthandam Educational and Charitable Trust and the deed of amendment presented by the Writ Petitioner need to be registered or not.

7. The learned single Judge, in his order, relying upon the judgment of this Court passed in R.Ashokkan V. Sub-Registrar and another reported in 2025 (1) CWC 692 has given liberty to the Writ Petitioner to re-present the deed of amendment of the Trust. Liberty was also given to the appellant herein to file a protest petition and if any such protest petition is submitted,

the same would be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

8. The order passed by the learned single Judge neither suffers lack of jurisdiction nor lack of due consideration of merits. Hence, we find the Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. (Dr.G.J.J.) & (M.S.K.J.) 19.11.2025 Index:yes/no Internet:yes Speaking order/non speaking order sl To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

Dr.

G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.

Sl

2. The District Registrar, Marthandam Registration District, Integrated Complex, Vettuvani, Marthandam Post,

3. The Joint Sub-Registrar - II, Marthandam, Integrated Complex, Vettuvani, Marthandam Post, and CMP No.23010 of 2025 19.11.2025