Sub-Registrar must conduct summary enquiry under Section 22-A before acting on religious institution objections to registration.

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 30.01.2026.

2.When the petitioner presented a document for partition, the same is refused to be registered for two reasons. One among the parties to the document when the property is allotted, a common pathway is created. Therefore, when the newly created pathway is made, by treating it as a residential unapproved plot, the same is refused to be registered. When a common property is being divided among the original shareholders, I am afraid that the reason contained in the refusal check slip is not sustainable. The entire intention behind the orders of this Court and thereafter the orders relating to regularization of unapproved plot is with reference to selling of the unapproved residential plots. Therefore, the same cannot be applied to the instant case. As far as the second reason is that, there is an objection on behalf the HR&CE department and Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil, Thiruchandur. Therefore, the property is refused to be registered.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the property and merely because there is a letter, the document need not be refused to be registered.

4.The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent is that when the petitioner is pleading before this court that the document is of the year 1902 does not contain the present property, they are making an avernment without even producing the document. On the other hand, the learned counsel by producing the document dated 18.08.1902 would submit that the recitals would categorically show that the properties mentioned in the 6th schedule were all endowed for the purpose mentioned therein and as such, the same is inalienable and therefore the objection made by the temple is sustainable.

5.Be that as far as the second reason is concerned, the objection is made pursuant to Section 22 A of the Act, the matter is no longer res Integra and it has been already decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar and another vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and others, reported in (2017) 3 CTC 135,held that the Sub- Registrar or the parties are not bound by the letter that is submitted by the authorities. On the other hand, they have to conduct a summary enquiry and reach a conclusion and if it is held against the executant, he has a remedy of filing the appeal and thereafter approaching the civil Court as the case may be. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted supra, for ready reference:

“25.In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with the following directions:

(i) The registering authority before whom the document has been presented shall cause service of notice on the parties to the deeds and also to the objector / religious institution, hold summary enquiry, hear the parties and then either register or refuse to register the document by passing an order having regard to the relevant facts as indicated above.

(ii) If the registering authority, refuses to register any document by accepting the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the aggrieved may file a statutory appeal under the Act.

(iii) If the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Act by the religious institution are rejected and the document is registered, the remedy for the religious institution is to either approach this Court by way of a writ petition seeking cancellation of the registration or for any other relief or to approach the civil Court for declaration of the title and for other consequenti