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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1152

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Prince Vino – Petitioner 
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu – Respondent 
W.P.(MD).No.1067 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD).No.828 of 2026
Decided On : 01-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel for Mr. M. Jegan.
For the Respondents:Mr. D.S. Nedunchezhian, Government Advocate, Mr. A.V. Arun.

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 such substantive civil matters are reserved exclusively for the adjudication of the competent Civil Court.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Registration of amendment deed of a trust - Competence of registering authority - Whether Sub-Registrar has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of the trust deed or internal administrative disputes including resignation of trustees and legitimacy of resolutions. (Paras 11, 15, 18, 20)

(B) Registration of Documents - Tamil Nadu Registration Rules - Rule 55 - Scope and ambit - Power of registering authority is confined to verification of execution and capacity to present; it does not extend to determining substantive questions of fact, trust management, or the validity of internal resolutions which fall within the domain of the Civil Court. (Paras 17, 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between the members of a charitable trust concerning the administration, management, and control of its properties. Multiple competing amendment deeds were presented for registration by rival factions, each claiming legitimacy. The registering authority had previously refused to register the documents citing the presence of clauses claiming earlier registered documents were void. Following judicial intervention in an earlier round of litigation, the authority proceeded to register the document. A fresh writ petition was filed challenging the registration of the amendment deed.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the registration of a document is an administrative process and does not by itself create civil rights or validate contested resolutions. The question of who is entitled to represent the trust and the validity of competing resolutions must be adjudicated by the Civil Court in pending proceedings. The Sub-Registrar cannot conduct an enquiry into the merits of the management disputes under the registration rules.

Issues: Whether the registration of an amendment deed of a trust by the authorities is sustainable when there is an active civil dispute regarding the leadership, control, and management of the trust and its properties.

Ratio Decidendi: The registering authority is not a judicial or quasi-judicial body capable of adjudicating title or the legality of internal management decisions, such as the resignation of trustees or the validity of general body resolutions. Registration does not vest rights or validate the claims of conflicting parties; such disputes remain strictly within the province of a civil court. Therefore, the registering authority is obligated to perform its statutory duty without delving into the substantive validity of the documents presented.

Result: Writ petition disposed of. The registration is not interfered with, but the disputes are relegated to the ongoing civil suits for determination.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding trust amendments and pending civil litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments concerning registrar's authority to evaluate document validity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. registration ministerial scope; substantive disputes remain for civil courts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. registration does not create substantive rights of governance. (Para 21)

ORDER :

A. The Prayer :

1.This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the third respondent in respect of the amendment deed presented by the fourth respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction; consequently, to restrain the respondents from acting upon or giving effect to the said registration, and further to direct the respondents to maintain the status quo as on date with respect to the administration, management and possession of Marthandam College of Engineering and Technology, pending disposal of the civil and appellate proceedings.

B. The brief facts :-

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that on 03.06.2005, one N.Sridharan Dhas and six others executed a deed of trust, registered as Doct.No.362/4 of 2005, on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Nagercoil. The declarants did not expressly dedicate any immovable property. The trust has an initial fund of Rs.63,000/-. However, the document provides that membership of the trust will be open to any person interested in social service who contributes a sum of Rs.3,000/- or more. The trust is named Marthandam Educational and Charitable Trust. Provisions are made with reference to membership, transfer of membership, passing of membership after death to legal heirs, transfer by nomination, etc. An Executive Committee is established to manage the trust and its activities. A list of 21 members of the first Executive Committee is contained in the said document. The powers of the President, Vice- President, Secretary, Treasurer, etc., are mentioned. The purposes, including the establishment of educational institutions and the formation of the Student Admission Committee, Appointment Committee, and Purchase Committee, are all mentioned in the trust deed.

3. On 15.02.2024, the said Sridharan Dhas and four others, in the name of Marthandam Educational and Charitable Trust, claiming to be represented by the said N.Sridharan Dhas and four others, presented a document titled a deed of amendment, which contains recitals purporting to amend Clause-II of Rules and Regulations in Doct. No.362/4 of 2005 by deleting the original clause in its entirety and replacing it with a new clause. It also lists the names of 14 persons as Executive Committee Members and the office-bearers, namely President, Vice- President, Secretary, and Treasurer. The document was also accompanied by a copy of the minutes of the Special General Body Meeting. The same was registered as Doct.No.19 of 2024 by the Joint-II Sub-Registrar, Nagercoil.

4. At this stage, on 24.09.2024, a suit was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, in O.S.No.383 of 2024, again in the name of Marthandam College of Engineering and Technology, represented by its Chairman, T.James Wilson, the fourth respondent herein. The suit was brought against 11 persons as defendants. It proceeds as if the first defendant in the suit, F.Prince Vino, the petitioner herein, was a member of the trust, resigned from the trust by a letter dated 23.12.2016, and received back his membership amount of Rs.3,000/-. It further states that the defendant Nos.2 to 8 in the suit also submitted their resignations on 21.01.2017 and received back their membership amount. It further states that the defendant Nos.3 to 11 were members only until the date of submission of their resignations and receipt of their membership dues. Thereafter, they are again trying to interfere in the management of the affairs of the Educational Institutions by falsely proclaiming th

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 Back to top