Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K.S. Eswaramoorthi – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar, Office of the Joint-II Sub Registrar, Tiruppur & Others – Respondents
WP No. 23877 of 2023
Decided On : 14-08-2023
Registration Act - Sale Deed - 1908 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, particularly Section 22-A, which empowers the Sub Registrar to refuse registration of a document if there is an objection in respect of the temple land by the Temple Authorities. The court also referred to the Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, and the conditions of service discharge under Section 11 read with Section 8 (2) (ii) and 21 (3) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to accept and register a Sale Deed application for a vacant land. The petitioner claimed to be the absolute owner of the property and argued that the refusal to receive the document for registration violated the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property belonged to the temple and was endowed for performing services and pujas. The court also noted that the Pujaris had illegally executed a Partition Deed and alienated the temple property. The court directed the Commissioner, HR&CE Department to initiate actions for the resumption of the land through adjudication under Section 41 of the HR&CE Act.
Issues: The main issues were the ownership of the property, the validity of the Sale Deed application, and the authority of the Sub Registrar to refuse registration based on objections from the Temple Authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, to determine the validity of the Sale Deed application and the authority of the Sub Registrar to refuse registration.
Final Decision: The court directed the Commissioner, HR&CE Department to initiate actions for the resumption of the land through adjudication under Section 41 of the HR&CE Act and impleaded the District Collector as a necessary party for adjudication of the issues.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to accept and register the Sale Deed Application No.TP/144709630/2023 dated 02.03.2023 in respect of vacant land measuring an extent of 20 cents in S.No.145, TS No.23/1B, Ward No.60, Tiruppur Municipal Town, Tiruppur Taluk, within the Sub-Registration District of the first respondent (Joint-II Sub Registrar) and Registration District of Tiruppur.)
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the first respondent to accept and register the Sale Deed Application No.TP/144709630/2023 dated 02.03.2023 in respect of vacant land measuring an extent of 20 cents in S.No.145, TS No.23/1B, Ward No.60, Tiruppur Municipal Town, Tiruppur Taluk, within the Sub-Registration District of the first respondent (Joint-II Sub Registrar) and Registration District of Tiruppur.
2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the subject property as described in the present writ petition. The petitioner presented the Sale Deed for registration before the first respondent-Sub Registrar. The first respondent-Sub Registrar refused to receive the said document. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the first respondent-Sub Registrar has not even received the document presented by the petitioner for registration. Such an act of the first respondent-Sub Registrar, is in violation of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. It is the duty mandated on the first respondent-Sub Registrar to receive the document and if it is not registrable, then the first respondent-Sub Registrar has to issue an order of refusal as per the procedure contemplated. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition, seeking a direction to receive the document and to register the same in accordance with provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner derived title from and out of the Partition Deed of the year 1951 and in the year 1968 Ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the person, who is claiming ownership in respect of the subject property. Subsequently, the petitioner executed the document in the year 1983.
5. It is contended that the title is not in dispute in the present writ petition. The petitioner presented the Sale Deed for registration, which was not received by the first respondent-Sub Registrar. Therefore, a direction is to be issued to that extent.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the subject property belongs to the temple, which was endowed and given for the purpose of performing services and pujas to the Tiruppur Veeraraghava Perumal Temple. The document No.1022 of 1951 unambiguously stipulates that the property endowed for the purpose of performing services in Veeraraghava Perumal Temple at Tiruppur and power of alienation has not been provided to the Pujaris. The Pujaris performing services during the year 1951, illegally executed the Partition Deed in between their own family members and attempted to grab the property belonging to the temple. Based on the Partition Deed, subsequent Sale Deed of the year 1983 was executed and the temple property was alienated to some other third parties.
7. Pertinently, the Court of Settlement Tahsildar, Gopichettipalayam adjudicated the issues with reference to Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The order of the Settlement Officer dated 17.09.1968 reveals that S.No.145 in Tiruppur Village is an unenfranchised Devadayam Minor Inam land granted for rendering “''Thiruvalagu Uliam'' in the pagoda of Veeraraghava Perumal at Tiruppur and confirmed in T.D.No.158, so long the performance of the service is c
The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Sub Registrar to refuse registration of a document based on objections from the Temple Authorities under Section 22-A of th....
A pending civil suit does not bar the registration of a Settlement Deed if no established conflicting title is presented by the opposing party.
A mere objection does not suffice to prevent property registration if the patta is valid and no action is taken to prove failure of service; rights of the pattadharar are protected until legally chal....
Registration of property cannot be unjustly denied based on mere objections; concrete evidence must establish non-compliance with conditions under relevant laws.
The main legal point established is that any inam granted to a service-holder of a religious institution is deemed to be a religious endowment for the benefit of the temple, and patta does not confer....
Mere objections from a third party cannot deny property registration; legal rights pertaining to service must be established for any transactions to be invalidated.
Appellant has miserably failed to establish a cogent link as to who were his predecessor in title and merely stating that patta has been granted would not be sufficient and going by such statement
When a religious institution objects to the registration of a document under S.22-A of the Registration Act, the registering authority must hold a summary inquiry, issue notice to all parties, and af....
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
