##PAGE1##

WP(MD). No.2272 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date : 30/01/2026

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

WP(MD). No.2272 of 2026

1. N.Ramesh

2. S.Devendran ... Petitioners

Vs

1. The District Registrar,

Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil..

2. The Sub Registrar,,

Boothapandi Sub Registrar Office,

Boothapandi, Kanyakumari District..

3. Raju,,

S/o.Chinnathambi,

No.44, Vetturnimada, Agastheeswaram Taluk,

Kanyakumari-629 003. ... Respondents

PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the

respondents herein to register and release the Sale Deed presented by the

petitioners and pending as Document No.11/2024 on the file of the 2^nd

respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Suthakaran

For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan for R1 and R2

Additional Government Pleader

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 06:19:05 pm )

WP(MD). No.2272 of 2026

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the

respondents herein to register and release the Sale Deed presented by the

petitioners and pending as Document No.11/2024 on the file of the 2^nd

respondent.

2. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final

disposal, at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel for

the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the

respondents 1 and 2. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed

against the third respondent, notice is dispensed with.

3. The petitioners purchased the land in question and executed a

sale deed and presented the sale deed for registration. However, the said

sale deed was refused to be registered by the 2^nd respondent on the

ground that since the earlier patta contained the name of Kuruman Kulam

Madam of Manickavasagam, Parameswaran family, Thazhakudy, the

petitioner has to obtain no objection from the HR&CE Department.

Hence, the 2^nd respondent has kept the document as pending document.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 06:19:05 pm )

WP(MD). No.2272 of 2026

Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

without following the law laid down by Sudha Ravikumar's case, the

second respondent has mechanically kept the document pending without

registering the same.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would fairly submit

that in the present case, since the law laid down in Sudha Ravikumar's

case is not followed, the matter may be remitted back to the 2^nd

respondent and a direction may be issued to the 2^nd respondent to

consider and pass orders.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials available on record.

7. It is seen that in the present case, when the sale deed was

presented by the petitioners, it was kept as pending document on the

ground that the earlier patta contain the name of the Mutt and without

there being no objection certificate from the HR&CE Department, the

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 06:19:05 pm )

WP(MD). No.2272 of 2026

document could not be registered. However, as per the law laid down by

this Court in AIR 2017 Madras 203 [Sudha Ravi Kumar and another

Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious

and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and another], the

authorities are bound to conduct enquiry by issuing notice to the parties

concerned.

8. Considering the submissions made on either side, the matter is

remanded back to the 2^nd respondent for considering afresh by issuing

notice to all the parties by following the law laid down by this Court in

AIR 2017 Madras 203 (supra). The petitioners are directed to represent the

document and upon receipt of the same, the 2^nd respondent is directed to

issue notice to the petitioner as well as the other interested parties and

upon conducting an enquiry strictly in accordance with the law laid down

in the aforesaid judgment, the 2^nd respondent