JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to register Sale Deeds pertaining to the scheduled property bearing GS.No.172 having an extent of Area measuring 2.09 Acres of land situated at Anupparpalayam Village, Coimbatore.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the third respondent to register Sale Deeds pertaining to the scheduled property bearing G.S.No.172 having an extent of Area measuring 2.09 Acres of land situated at Anupparpalayam Village, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner states that 240 acres of land situated at G.S.No.172, situated in Anupparpalayam, Coimbatore South Taluk, has been divided into plots for residential purpose in 2011 and named as 'Arputham Nagar'.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the land initially belonged to and purchased from one Mr.Y.S.Ranganatha Rao (Sarvathikari of Vyasaraja Mutt) situated at Solalai Village in the State of Karnataka.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterated that the said Mr.Y.S.Ranganatha Rao on 17.07.1986 sold an extent of 2.24 Acres of land in G.S.No.172 situated in Anupparpalayam Village, Coimbatore in favour of Tvl.K.Arumugham, K.A.Mani and Nagarajan under three Sale Deeds bearing Document Nos.3776/1986, 3777/1986 and 3778/1986 registered before the Joint Sub Registrar I, Coimbatore.

5. On the said basis, the petitioner claims that they are entitled for ownership and therefore, the Sale Deeds presented by them before the Joint Sub Registrar I, Coimbatore are to be registered. In view of the fact that the Joint Sub Registrar I, Coimbatore refused to register the documents based on the letter issued by the Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Government advocate, appearing on behalf of the second respondent, disputed the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the Competent Authority of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department [hereinafter referred to as the 'HR&CE Department', in short] raised an objection on the ground that the property belongs to the temple under the control of HR&CE Department.

7. In this regard, an objection letter was sent to the Sub Registrar concerned, not to register any documents in respect of the subject property. Such a refusal by the Sub Registrar is recognised under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the Registrar shall refuse to register certain documents and sub clause (ii) of the said Section, stipulates that the Registering Officer shall refuse to register in respect of the documents belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any Religious Institution to which the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable. Therefore, the objection submitted by the HR&CE Department is in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and the refusal made by the Sub Registrar is also in consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner is bound to establish their title before the Authorities Competent or before the Competent Civil Court of Law by instituting a civil suit.

8. In reliance, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and Another vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department [(2017) 3 CTC 135], wherein in paragraph-26, it has been observed as under:-

“26. 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 sh