Senthil Kumaran v. The Inspector General Of Registration

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Senthil Kumaran ... Appellant / Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 28.

2.The District Registrar, Madurai North, 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai North, 4.The Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareshwarar Temple, 5.The Sub-Registrar, District Registrar Cadre, Tallakulam, 1/6

6.Sooravali Subbaiyar Charities, Represented by its Chairman cum Managing Trustee, No.19, Tamil Sangam Road, ... Respondents / Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P(MD)No.8749 of 2023 dated 03.12.2024.

For Appellant : Mr.T.Leninkumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3 & R.5 Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R.4

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.) Heard both sides.

2.The appellant herein purchased the petition mentioned property from a person who was cultivating the land in question. The property actually belongs to a Trust. The appellant wanted to create a mortgage over the property. When he presented the memorandum of deposit of title deed, the registering authority declined to register the same by citing the objection 2/6

received from Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman Temple. Challenging the refusal check slip, the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.8749 of 2023. The learned single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition on 03.12.2024 in the following terms: "4. If any objections raised by the temple, the registering authority ought to have conduct an enquiry under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Mere objection by way of letter won't be sufficient to refuse the registration of the documents. In this regard, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravikumar v. The Special Commissioner reported in AIR 2017 Mad 203, held as follows:- "the registering authority is not bestowed with any quasi-judicial function to hold a roving enquiry in respect of the title to the property. But he has to hold a summary enquiry for the limited purpose of satisfying himself that the document deserves to be registered. Such enquiry is neither judicial nor quasijudicial."

5. Admittedly, the fifth respondent did not conduct any enquiry and on receipt of the objections from the temple, mechanically refused to register the title deeds.

6. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to represent the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, dated 08.12.2022 for registration before the fifth respondent. On receipt of the same, the fifth respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as well as the objectors, if any, and conduct an enquiry under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with 3/6

law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter."

3.In our view the learned single Judge had merely followed the directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Sudha Ravi Kumar's case. The impugned order is not in any way adverse to the appellant. Interference with the said order is not warranted.

4.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 02.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 28.

2.The District Registrar, Madurai North, 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai North, Madurai.

4/6

4.The Joint Commissioner, Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareshwarar Temple, 5.The Sub-Registrar, District Registrar Cadre, Tallakulam, 6.Chairman cum Managing Trustee, Sooravali Subbaiyar Charities, No.19, Tamil Sangam Road, 5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

MGA 02.06.2025 6/6