Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
Mr.Sulthan Basha – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar, O/o. District Registrar, Ranipettai District – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Seetharam
For the Respondents:Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate, Mr.T.Sai Krishnan Standing Counsel for Wakf Board
Absence of adequate property details in Wakf notifications undermines claims of ownership, allowing for registration of properties not mentioned, with the onus on Wakf to establish rights through Civil Court.
Headnote:(A) Muslim Wakf Act, 1954 - Sections 3(l) and 5(2) - Registration of Sale Deed - Writ Petition filed against refusal to register sale deed on grounds of property being Wakf - Court held that absence of survey numbers in the Gazette notification renders Wakf's claims weak; petitioner’s property, not mentioned in the notification, can be registered. (Paras 7, 21-24)
(B) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A - Effect on registration of property - Court found that unless Wakf details are published adequately, registration cannot be denied and established that onus lies on Wakf to prove claims in Civil Court. (Paras 24, 26)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner claimed to own a property intended for sale, faced refusal due to claims by Wakf Board. Court examined property ownership through historical records and recent communications between parties to validate ownership.
Findings of Court:
Court found that property details were inadequately defined in the Gazette notification and ruled in favor of the petitioner allowing registration of the sale deed.
Issues: Main issues included the validity of Wakf claims over petitioner’s property and rightful authority to register the sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized the necessity for precise property identification in Gazettes for Wakf claims and the right to register property not listed within those parameters, reinforcing petitioner's ownership status.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; refusal slip set aside and ordered transparency in registration process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to sale deed registration refusal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim of wakf property ownership. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. understanding 'wakf' and its implications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's inquiry into property ownership. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. gazette notification relevance for property claims. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. requirements for wakf property claims. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. impact of non-disclosed property details. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. burden of proof on wakf board. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. court's orders and resolution of the case. (Para 27 , 28) |
Order
The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the refusal slip issued by the second respondent dated 11.07.2025 and to quash the same, and consequently, to direct the second respondent to register the sale deed dated 11.07.2025 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, being the absolute owner of the property comprised in Old Survey No.1119/A1 and New Survey No.1119/1A3 situated at Kaveripakkam Town Panchayat intended to a sell a portion of his property in favour of some third party and presented a sale deed dated 11.07.2025, for the purpose of registration, however, the second respondent by virtue of the impugned Refusal Check Slip refused to register the sale deed citing the reason that all the properties in Survey Number 1119/2 belongs to the third respondent, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and and challenging the said refusal, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that petitioner's vendor, viz., S.Kannan inherited the subject property through his family Partition Deed dated 20.03.1975, and the said Kannan also obtained patta in respect of the subject property from the Revenue Department; that but, since the property neighbouring to Kannan's property in S.No.1119/2 is owned by the third respondent-Wakf Board, the said Vendor of the petitioner wrote letters to the respondent-Wakf Board dated 03.10.2022 and 21.10.2022, and got clarified the issue vide reply from the third respondent- Wakf Board dated 03.11.2022 that the property in S.No.1119/1 does not belong to the third respondent-Wakf Board and it is a private property; that it is only thereafter, the petitioner has purchased the said property vide a sale deed dated 06.12.2022. Therefore, it is contended that the third respondent- Wakf Board vide its reply dated 03.11.2022 made it clear via. its Proforma Report that only a portion in S.No.1119, i.e. S.No.1119/2 belongs to the third respondent-Wakf Board, however, the second respondent vide the impugned refusal held that the all the properties situated in Kaveripattiam Village belongs to the Wakf, and therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned refusal check slip dated 11.07.2025.
3. The learned Government Advocate for respondents 1, 2 and 4 would submit that in the record maintained by the respondents Office, the subject property is mentioned as ''Wakf Property'' and therefore, the petitioner has been directed to obtain No Objection Certificate from the third respondent-Wakf Board and that if at all, the petitioner claims to have right over the subject property, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court and establish his title over the property in the manner known to law.
4. So far as the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent-Wakf Board is concerned, he produced a Gazette Notification dated 11.02.1959, published in terms of Section 5 (2) of the Muslims Wakf Act, 1954, wherein, the details of Wakfs existing in the Madras State were mentioned and made his submissions that the properties situated in Kaveripakkam Village mentioned in Sl.Nos.8, 15 and 16 of the said notification falls under the category of Wakf properties. However, when this Court pointed out that the subject property, viz. the property bearing New S.No.1119/1A3, has no relevance to the property mentioned in Sl.No.15, (as the Survey number mentioned in Sl.No.15 bears the num
