Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
B. Rajesh - Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar (Administration), Thanjavur Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos. 11199 & 11200 of 2022 & W.M.P.(MD). Nos. 8004 & 8005 of 2022
Decided On : 27-09-2022
Registration of Amended Deeds - Trust - [Registration Act, Section 34(3), Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, Rule 46] - The court quashed the registration of amended deeds presented unilaterally by the third respondent, holding that the registering authority failed to conduct an enquiry into the competence of the executant and that such documents cannot be accepted for registration without ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and trust deed clauses.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, son and mother, contested the removal of their positions as trustees of a trust by the third respondent. The third respondent unilaterally presented two amended deeds for registration, leading to the filing of writ petitions to quash the registration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registering authority failed to conduct an enquiry into the competence of the third respondent to present the amended deeds, and held that such documents cannot be accepted for registration without ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and trust deed clauses.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the registration of the amended deeds unilaterally presented by the third respondent, and the authority of the registering authority to accept such documents without conducting an enquiry into the competence of the executant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Registration Act, Section 34(3) and the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, Rule 46, and emphasized the obligation of the registering authority to ensure that documents presented for registration comply with statutory provisions and trust deed clauses.
Final Decision: The court quashed the registration of the amended deeds and allowed the writ petitions, emphasizing that such documents cannot be accepted for registration without ensuring compliance with statutory provisions and trust deed clauses.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: W.P.(MD)No.11199 of 2022: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in respect of the document registered as No.20/2022 in Book-IV dated 27.01.2022 (viz., the Amended deed of Sri Raghava Janaki Ammal Educational and Charitable Trust) presented by the 3rd respondent and registered by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
W.P.(MD)No.11200 of 2022: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in respect of the document registered as document No.31/2022 in Book-IV dated 16.02.2022 (viz., the Amended deed of Sri Raghava Janaki Ammal Educational and Charitable Trust) presented by the 3rd respondent and registered by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.)
Common Order:
1. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The writ petitioners are son and mother. While Thiru.B.Rajesh is the son of the third respondent Thiru.R.Balasubramanian, there is a contest regarding the present status of the other writ petitioner Mrs.Annalakshmi. She claims to be the legally wedded wife of Thiru.R.Balasubramanian. Thiru.R.Balasubramanian on the other hand would claim that Annalakshmi is his second wife. But it is beyond dispute that all of them were the first trustees as well as the life trustees of Sri Raghava Janaki Ammal Educational and Charitable Trust. The said trust was registered on 14.09.2004. The relationship between the writ petitioners on the one hand and Thiru.R.Balasubramanian on the other had come under strain. Allegations and the counter allegations are being made. At this stage, Thiru.R.Balasubramanian presented two amended deeds of the petition mentioned trust before the second respondent. Under one amended deed, Thiru.B.Rajesh was removed as the fourth trustee, while by virtue of the other amended deed, Mrs.R.Annalakshmi's name was deleted / removed. These documents were registered as documents Nos.20 of 2022 and document No.31 of 2022 in Book-IV on the file of the second respondent. For quashing the registration of the aforementioned amended deeds, these writ petitions have been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on the side of the third respondent controverting the averments set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the third respondent is the chairman of the trust, he has no authority to remove the writ petitioners from their position as trustees. The unilateral removal of the writ petitioners from the trust could not have been registered by the second respondent. The second respondent ought to have conducted an enquiry if such a document could have been presented by the third respondent for registration. Since the second respondent failed to adhere to the procedure set out in the Registration Act, the writ petitioners are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the writ Court under Article 226 on the Constitution of India. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) (2022) 7 SCC 1 (Veena Singh (Dead) through LRs. Vs. District Registrar / Additional Collector and another)
(ii) 2022-3-L.W. 604 ( N.Jeevalakshmi and Another V. N.Maheswaran and Others)
(iii) CDJ 2007 Kar HC 658 ( L. Shivalingaiah Vs. Panchajanya Vidya Peetha Welfare Trust and Ors.).
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submitted that these writ petitions are not maintainable. He placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) reported in 2021 (1) ABR 727 ( Lakhichand Marotrao Dhoble and Ors. V. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors.). According to him, the third respondent being
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is that documents presented for registration must comply with statutory provisions and trust deed clauses, and the registering authority has an obl....
Point of law: in the guise of registering the supplementary trust deed, the petitioner cannot enter into any transaction, which would dilute the right of the 3rd respondent in the pending civil Court....
The registering authority under the Registration Act lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of trust resolutions, the status of trustees, or disputes concerning management control, as suc....
Trustees' unilateral resignations require acceptance by the Board, and the Registrar must register amendments without questioning internal validity.
The registering authority must conduct an inquiry into objections regarding the identity and authority of parties presenting documents for registration, ensuring procedural integrity in the registrat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
