The registering authority cannot refuse to register a document based solely on the objection raised by a religious institution, and an enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in the impugned check slip, dated 30.12.2022 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the first respondent to register the deed for deposit of title deeds of the petitioner, dated 30.2.2022.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with an impugned check slip, dated 30.12.2022 on the file of the first respondent/Sub Registrar, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District and thereafter, to direct the first respondent to register the deed for Deposit of Title Deeds presented by the petitioner, dated 30.02.2022.

2. Heard Mr.S.Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Prakash, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel for the second respondent.

3. The petitioner claims that a house site plot comprised in S.No. 674/2 at Kallappakulam village, measuring 4368 sq.ft., had been originally purchased by one Tmt.Shanmugavadivooammal, through a registered sale deed, dated 21.07.1980. Thereafter, her husband and her two daughters succeeded to the land. The petitioner had purchased the land on 10.04.2013 from the legal heirs of Shanmugavadivooammal. The revenue records, like, patta, chitta and other records were mutated in the name of the petitioner herein. The petitioner had also mortgaged the property. He then applied for loan and also obtained a loan. He had also created a mortgage as security for the loan. Thereafter, he had executed a Deposit of Title Deed in favour of a finance company and presented the same for registration on 30.12.2022 before the first respondent. However, the first respondent refused to register it stating that a no objection certificate has to be obtained from the second respondent, namely, Arulmighu Sankaranarayana Temple at Sankarankovil in Tenkasi District. Questioning that particular check slip, the present Writ Petition had been filed.

4. A counter affidavit had been filed by the second respondent, wherein, it was stated that the land in question was a service inam land for the Parijarahars, who were working in the temple. It is stated that they sold the land to others. Therefore the service inam stood canceled and the Temple had taken steps to reclaim the lands. The title of the petitioner herein is directly disputed by the second respondent herein.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of a Division Bench of this Court, in quiet similar circumstances, which had also been followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge in P.Varadharajan vs Special Commissioner, HR & CE and others [2020 3 CTC 785] had relied on the order of the Division Bench, and held as follows:

“4.Since the land was originally belonged to Sri Rangathaswamy Temple, it appears that there were some issues earlier and the petitioner''s predecessor-in-interest was constrained to file a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. (MD)No.22753 of 2019 for issuing a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to register the document in respect of the property belonging to the writ petitioner. This Court, after holding that the temple has no semblance of right and that the land was acquired long back by the Society, issued a direction to the Registering Authority to register the document, if the second respondent did not give any objection within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It was, thereafter, the petitioner acquired the property by way of a settlement deed, dated 25.11.2019, When the petitioner has gone before the Sub Registrar to register the sale deed, the Registrar refused to register the document on the ground that the property is the property of Sri Renganatha Aranganathar Swami Temple, Sri Rangam and that therefore, t