The court emphasized the need to protect temple properties and the validity of the refusal to register a sale deed for temple land.

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the return endorsement made by the second respondent, Sub-registrar, Srirangam, on 09.03.2005 and for a consequential direction to direct the Sub-registrar to register the petitioners Sale Deed in respect of house property and land in Old door No.1092, (New Door No.45), coming under Ward 1, Melachitrai Street, in T.S.No.2084 Block, 53, Vellithirumutham Village, Srirangam Town.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 07.04.2005 and notice was ordered to the respondents. On behalf of the third respondent temple, certain documents were filed in the typed set of papers. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit dated 15.09.2008.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the property from his vendor one S.T. Ramasamy for a valuable consideration of Rupees 7.5 Lakhs. In turn his vendor had purchased the said property from one Mythili by a registered sale deed dated 02.02.1994. Since revenue records, electricity connection and water connection were in the name of the vendor and the title deeds were also perused, he paid the sale consideration. A sale deed was prepared and presented to the second respondent, Sub Registrar, on 09.03.2005 for registration.

4. The second respondent informed the petitioner that the said Town Survey No. belonged to the third respondent temple and in view of Section 22 A of the Registration Act and G.O.Ms.No.150, CT&RE, Department, dated 22.09.2000, the said document could not be registered by the Sub Registrars Office. Therefore, the petitioner challenges the action of the second respondent in refusing to register the document presented to him.

5. Strong reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 (3) CTC 513, wherein the Supreme Court has held that Section 22-A of the Registration Act is ultra vires. Therefore, it was contended that any G.O. issued tracing its sources of power to Section 22-A of the Registration Act is also invalid. Exception was also taken to the third respondent in not having filed any counter. A further statement was made that Inam C.M.A.No.32/1978 ordered by the Fifth Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirappali, cannot be a final document. It is also stated that from the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment and therefore, the Sub-registrar should be directed to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

6. Mr. K. Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the temple produced the judgment and decree of the Inam Abolition Tribunal (V Additional Sub-Judge, Trichi) in Inam CMA.No.32/78 filed by the third respondent temple. In that order, the petitioner properties original vendor one Ranganaiyakiammal W/o Krishnamachari was shown as the 19th respondent having their residential address No.45, West Chitrai Street, which property the petitioner claims to have purchased with the present sale deed. In that order, the Inam Tribunal set aside the order of the Settlement Tahsildar dated 29.07.1967 and consequentially a ryotwari patta was directed to be issued in favour of the third respondent temple. In the description of the property appended to the order, the T.S.No.2084 has been mentioned as item no.18.

7. When the third respondent had secured an order in their favour with a direction to issue patta, it is not open to the petitioner to come forward to state that he has purchased the house and land property in the same survey no and that it should be registered by the Sub Registrar without any objection.

8. Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said Inam Tribunals order is pending in appeal before the Special Appellate Tribunal. But he is not able to state whether any interim order has been obtained. Ever otherwise, he submitted that the Court is concerned only with the merits or demerits of the endorsement made by the second respondent. Insofar as the the second respondent had relied upon Section 22-A as w