J U D G E M E N T

(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The writ appeal on hand has been instituted challenging the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.29329 of 2023. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us.

2. The writ proceeding was initiated seeking a direction to direct the Sub-Registrar, Pozichalur, to accept and register the sale deed dated 05.09.2023 presented by the writ petitioner through his power agent S.Ramesh Kumar. Since the sale deed presented for registration was refused, the petitioner has chosen to file the writ appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.E.Prabu would submit that the Sub Registrar has not even received the document for scrutinisation. As per the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court, the Sub Registrar ought to have received the documents, conduct an inquiry and thereafter, an order to be passed. Contrarily he has not even received the document and thus, the writ petition came to be instituted.

4. Mr.Prabu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property. He is in possession of all the relevant documents. The property was classified as "Grama Natham" and it was assigned his favour. A sale deed was executed and the petitioner constructed building. Therefore, he is the owner of the property and in possession. Without considering any of these facts, the Sub Registrar refused to receive the document presented for registration under the Registration Act. The learned Single Judge relegated the parties to approach the Civil Court. Question of approaching the Civil Court would not arise in the present case since the petitioner is the absolute owner and more so, Sub Registrar failed to conduct an inquiry. Thus, the appeal is to be considered.

5. Learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, would oppose by stating that under Section 22A of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar refused to receive the document. Thus, there is no infirmity. Admittedly the third respondent temple "Arulmigu Ranganatha Perumal Thirukoil" filed an objection to register the properties belonging to the temple, including the subject property. In other words the third respondent temple claims title over the subject property and therefore, the Sub Registrar has rightly refused to receive the documents. The Writ Court also rejected the claim of the petitioner and thus, the writ appeal is to be rejected.

6. Considering the arguments as advanced between the parties to the lis on hand, let us first consider the scope of Section 22(A) of the Registration Act 1908. Section 22(A) was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2012 and it came into effect from 20.10.2018. Section 22A contemplates not withstanding anything contained in this Act, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register any of the following documents. Section 22(A)(1)(ii) denotes that "belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution to which the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable". Therefore, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register if there is an objection from the temple claiming title/right over the properties. Thus, on receipt of any objection from the temple authority/ H.R. & C.E. Department, the Registering Officer under the Registration Act shall refuse to register any document presented for registration.

7. The Sub Registrar/ Registering Authority is not empowered to conduct an inquiry under Section 22A of the Registration Act. Therefore, the Registering Officer, in the event of an objection from the temple authorities is bound to refuse the documents. An aggrieved person has to approach the Civil Court for establishing his title in the manner known to law. Thus, the Sub Registrar/Registering Officer has no authority to conduct an inquiry and decide whether the document presented by the presentent is to be registered or not. Mere objectio