When a religious institution objects to the registration of a document under S.22-A of the Registration Act, the registering authority must hold a summary inquiry, issue notice to all parties, and afford them an opportunity to be heard before deciding the registration request.

O R D E R

Challenge in this Writ Petition is against the impugned order dated

25.10.2024, refusing to register the sale deed dated 24.06.2023 in favour of the petitioner.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that originally the property situated at S.F.No.135/1 Patta No.529 to an extent of 12.23 belonged to one Palanisamy. After the demise of the said Palanisamy, his wife namely P.Saraswathi succeeded his estate. The said P.Saraswathi executed a sale deed in favour of one S.Sivaprakash Kumar, which was registered by the 1^st respondent. The patta and other revenue records also stood in the name of the said S.Sivaprakash Kumar. Since the said S.Sivaprakash Kumar sold 0.50 cents of his land to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation on 25.10.2024 to the 1^st respondent for registration of the sale deed. The 1^st respondent vide impugned order dated

25.10.2024, refused to register the said sale deed on the ground that the 3^rd respondent vide letter dated 10.04.2024, objected stating that the said property belonged to the 3^rd respondent. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revenue records namely patta, A-register and other revenue records stood in the name of Palanisamy, erstwhile owner, after which the same stood in the name of the vendor of the petitioner viz., S.Sivaprakash Kumar. The 3^rd respondent never owned the property and was never in possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, it is illegal to reject the representation of the petitioner on the ground of the objection of the 3^rd respondent. Hence, prayed for registering the sale deed as per the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2024.

4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE), appearing for the 3^rd respondent, filed a counter affidavit and denied all the averments made by the petitioner. He further submitted that the Settlement Thasildar, Gopichettipalayam, had issued condition pattas in respect of the subject property in favour of one Nachimuthu Gounder. According to the said condition patta, Nachimuthu Gounder had to render service to the Arulmigu Mandiragiri Velauthasamy Thirukoil. Nachimuthu Gounder neither did service to the temple nor paid fair rent fixed by the temple Thasildar. After his demise, his son Palanisamy, got the subject property partitioned among their family members. Hence, when the petitioner intended to purchase the land from his vendor viz., S.Sivaprakash Kumar, who bought the land from the said Palanisamy, the 1^st respondent refused to register the same based on the letter issued by the 3^rd respondent.

5.After getting instruction, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that he would follow the procedure, as contemplated by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar and Others Vs., The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu ReligiousandCharitable Endowments Department and Others, dated

05.04.2017, reported in AIR 2017 Mad 203.

6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7.The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Settlement Thasildar, Gopichettipalayam, had issued condition pattas in respect of the subject property in favour of one Nachimuthu Gounder for doing Lavandai Uliyam to the 3^rd respondent temple. According to the said condition patta, Nachimuthu Gounder had to render service to the Arulmigu Mandiragiri Velauthasamy Thirukoil. Nachimuthu Gounder neither did service to the temple nor paid fair rent fixed by the temple Thasildar. After his demise, his son Palanisamy, got the subject property partitioned among their family members. From Palanisamy, one S.Sivaprakash Kumar purchase