P.Arulprakash v. The District Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR P.Arulprakash ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The District Registrar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Boothapandi, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
4.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 5.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents [R3 to R5 are impleaded vide order dated 11.09.2024] PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to 1/19
the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent in RFL/Boothapandi/27/2024 dated 19.06.2024 and quash the same and further directing the second respondent to entertain the sale deed dated 19.06.2024 for registration and consequently to register and release the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R3 to R5 : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusals check slip issued by the second respondent in RFL/Boothapandi/27/2024 dated 19.06.2024 and to direct the second respondent to register and release the sale deed dated 19.06.2024.
2.The case of the writ petitioner is that the subject property originally belongs to Sri La Sri Kasi Madam, Thirupanandhal. Since there was a dispute, a suit came to be filed in C.S.No.208 of 1927 and C.S.No.89 of 1928 against the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department, wherein judgment had been passed by this Court to the effect that the property morefully mentioned in the schedule annexed to the suit, only constitutes religious endowment attached to the said mutt and the Board has 2/19
jurisdiction over the same. With regard to the other properties, which is in possession of the second plaintiff therein, it is categorically held that the board has no jurisdiction over the same and the said judgment and decree had attained finality.
3. It is further submitted by the petitioner that pursuant to the said decree, several documents have already been registered. The special Commissioner HR & CE Department has also addressed a communication dated 30.03.2007 in Ne.Mu.No.37243/06/R1 to the Sub Registrar informing him that only the properties, which were vested with the Board as per the decree of the Court, belong to the religious endowment and other properties are not belonging to the religious Board. Though the communication was sent on 30.03.2007, the same was sought to be reversed later, which was put into challenge in W.P.(MD)No. 1920 of 2015. However, the said writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the above, an appeal has been filed before this Court in W.A.(MD)No.
972 of 2020, The Division Bench of this Court, setting aside the order of the Single Bench, has clearly held that the earlier communication given on 30.03.2007 cannot be revised. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject property has been never vested with the HR & CE Department and reasons adduced by the Sub Registrar to refuse to register the document cannot be sustained.
3/19
4.It is the stand of the HR & CE Department that this property is shown as mutt property in the A Register. Therefore, the document cannot be registered as there is a clear bar under Section 22-A of the Act. 5.I have heard the learned counsel appearing on their and perused the entire materials placed on record.
6.As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the properties are the subject matter of the civil Suit in C.S.No.208 of 1927. This Court had passed the following order:
"1.That the properties, morefully described in the schedule hereto only constitute a religious endowment attached to the suit Mutt and that the Defendant Board has Jurisdiction over the same. 2.That in regard to the other properties in the possession of the Plaintiff 2 herein the Defendant Board has no jurisdiction over the same and the provisions of Madras Act II of 1927 do not apply to the same:
3.That contribution shall be paid by plaintiff 2 herein to the Defendant Board from the year 1934 commencing form the first July of that year."
4/19
7.The schedule annexed in the decree is as follows: Schedule:
Properties in the villages of 103.Palngatoor, 104 Ranganathapuram and 109 Akkaraikottagam, Mannargudi Taluk, Tanjore District. 5/19
6/19
7/19
8/19
9/19
10/19
11/19
12/19
13/19
14/19
15/19
8.From the above schedule, it is seen that the total extent of property is 1006.14 acres of wet land and 63.84 acres of dry land. The said plaint schedule property alone was vested with the department. The properties, which were actually in possession of the second plaintiff therein, were never vested with the department. This Court has declared that the department has no jurisdiction over the property, which were in possession of the second plaintiff in the suit. In this regard, the communication dated 30.03.2007 issued by the Special 16/19
Commissioner of the HR & CE Department to the Registration Department, has in fact admitted the decree and judgment passed by the this Court, wherein it was held that the property, which was in possession of the petitioner and not the subject matter of the schedule, is not belonging to the department. This order was also subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD)No.972 of 2020.
9.Therefore, once the rights of the parties have already been agitated and reached finality in a civil suit, merely on the basis of the entries found in 'A' Register, the temple authorities can not claim title over the properties of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 in RFL/Boothapandi/27/2024 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to register the document within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to represent the document once again before the second respondent, who in turn shall register the same, if otherwise in order. No costs. 15.10.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no ta 17/19
To 1.The District Registrar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Sub Registrar, Boothapandi, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
4.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 5.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
18/19
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta 15.10.2024 19/19