SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4050

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
Muniasamy - Appellant
Versus
Sub-Registrar, Sankarankovil - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 869 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.J. Karthick
For the Respondents: S.P. Maharajan, V.R. Shanmuganathan

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 challenged.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 - Sections 8(2)(ii), 8(5), and 21 - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 41 - Refusal to register deed based on objection that service inams not being rendered - The petitioner held a valid patta for the land, which had achieved finality - Merely issuing an objection does not suffice to prevent registration. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Land Transactions - Legal rights concerning continuation of service and challenge to registration - The temple cannot prevent alienation of land without establishing failure of service; the rightful occupier can challenge such actions unless legally validated. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the owner of land granted through a ryotwari patta, sought to register a sale deed but faced opposition from the temple claiming the land was service inams. The patta had not been challenged or revoked legally.

Findings of Court:
The court held that an objection without action taken or verified claims does not justify refusal to register the property sale, directing the first respondent to register the documents within one week.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the patta against claims of service requirements and whether mere objections suffice to halt registration of sale deeds.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that rights granted under the patta must be legally challenged and that without demonstrated failure in service, registration cannot be refused solely on objections.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim to land ownership. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding the validity of land transactions. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's review of patta issuance. (Para 4 , 5)
4. interpretation of sections 8 and 21 of act 30 of 1963. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
5. conditions for resuming land and valid objections. (Para 10 , 11)
6. order for registration of petitioner's documents. (Para 12 , 13)

ORDER :

1. According to the petitioner, he purchased the land comprised in old survey No.572/3, later sub divided into 572/3B19 measuring to an extent of 50 cents vide a registered sale deed dated 16.11.2000. Thereafter on 31.12.2024, the petitioner decided to sell the subject property in favour of the third party and execute a sale deed and presented the same before the first for registration. However, the 1st respondent refused to accept the same citing the objection dated 09.02.2021 given by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner requested the first respondent to register the document. Since, the same was not considered by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that patta proceedings had been initiated under Act 30 of 1963 and vide order dated 30.04.1972, ryotwari patta had been issued in favour of the predecessors of the petitioner in respect of the properties in question and that order has been reached finality, which has not been challenged. Ever since the date of patta, the predecessor in title enjoyed the properties in question and several transaction had also taken place. Now, by giving mere objection before the registering authority, the Temple cannot prevent the transaction.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the subject properties are service inams and patta has been granted only under Section 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) r/w Section 21 of Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Act 30 of 1963) and if the service is not rendered by the pattadharars, they do not have any right either to enjoy the lands or to alienate the same and the Temple can resume the lands at any time as per Section 41 of TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT , 1959 (hereinafter, referred to as HR & CE Act'). That apart, Section 38 of Act 30 of 1963 also makes such transaction as void. Hence, he opposed this Writ Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is not disputed by both sides that patta had been originally granted under Section 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) r/w Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963. That order has been reached finality, which has not been challenged.

6. It is relevant to extract Sections 8(2)(ii) and 8(5) of Act 30 of 1963, which read as follows:-

“8. Grant of ryotwari Pattas:-

(2)(ii) In the case of any other land, the institution or the individual rendering service shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of that land.

(5) In the case of a minor inam held immediately before the appointed day by an individual on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution, the grant of ryotwari patta under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be subject to the provisions of section 21.”

7. The above provisions make it clear that any patta granted under Section 8 of Act 30 of 1963 shall be subject to the provision of Section 21 .

8. Section 21 of Act 30 of 1963 reads as follows:-

“21. Service inams.

(1) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of any minor inam which was held immediately before the appointed day by an individual (hereinafter referred to in this section as the service-holder) on condition of rendering service to a religious, educational or charitable institution.

(2) The service-holder shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be bound to continue to render the service after the appointed day.

(3)(i)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top