Madras High Court
The Inspector General Of Registration vs K.V.Jeyaraj on 12 November, 2021
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan, G.Jayachandran
W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010
W.A.(MD) No.162 of 2010:
1.The Inspector General of Registration
No.120, Santhome High Road
Mandaveli, Chennai-28
2.The Registrar
Registration
Periyakulam
Theni District
3.The Sub Registrar
Office of the Sub Registrar
Registration
Markayan Kottai Road
Chinnamanur
Theni District ... Appellants
-vs-
K.V.Jeyaraj ... Respondent
______________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 07.01.2010, passed in W.P.(MD) No.12278 of 2009, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Died
W.A.(MD) No.176 of 2010:
Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
rep.by its Chief Executive Officer
No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street
Vallal Seethakadi Nagar
Chennai-1 ... Appellant
-vs-
1.K.V.Jeyaraj (Died)
2.The Inspector General of Registration
No.120, Santhome High Road
Mandaveli
Chennai-28
3.The Registrar
Registration
Periyakulam
Theni District
______________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010
4.The Sub Registrar
Office of the Sub Registrar
Registration
Markayan Kottai Road
Chinnamanur
Theni District
5.J.Maragatham
6.J.Jeyarathi
7.Prabha
8.Prabhakaran ... Respondents
[R5 to R8 are impleaded as LRs of the
deceased R1 vide Court Order dated
06.08.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD) No.2334
of 2021 in W.A.(MD) No.176 of 2010]
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 07.01.2010, passed in W.P.(MD) No.12278 of 2009, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Ajmal Khan, Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader for R2 to R4
Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for R5 & R8
______________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
One K.V.Jeyaraj approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus directing the Inspector General of Registration and his subordinates, more particularly, the Sub Registrar, Chinnamanur, Theni District, to release the document No.P200900045, dated 24.07.2009, which was captioned as “Gift Deed” executed by him and his wife Maragatham in favour of their son Prabhakaran. The said document was registered, but the original document was not returned, presumably due to the objection raised by the Wakf Board claiming title over the subject property.
2. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 07.01.2010, has held that when a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the Registering Authority to register the same and there is no power to withhold the document. However, this proposition of law has undergone a sea change due to the amendment brought in the Registration Act to one Section 22-A and also in view of Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which was substituted with effect from 01.11.2013. ______________ Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010
3. When aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Inspector General of Registration preferred appeal in W.A.(MD) No.162 of 2010, the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board obtained leave of this Court and preferred W.A.(MD) No.176 of 2010. The sum and substance of the grounds of the said writ appeal is that the respondent Jeyaraj has no right or title over the property, which was transferred under the Gift Deed dated 24.07.2009. The subject property belongs to the Wakf Board and the proforma issued by the Wakf Board would clearly show that the property covered under Registration No.238, Survey Nos. 54/5 and 54/6 at Ponmeni Village falling within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar, Chinnamanur, is a declared wakf property and the wakf property cannot be alienated without the consent of the Wakf Board. While so, by misrepresenting that the dispute over the title in the property had already been settled in O.S.No.919 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai and in W.O.P.No.6 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, the respondent / writ petitioner attempted to register the Gift Deed. When the Wakf Board made an objection regarding alienation of the subject property, the Registration Department has rightly withheld the document. ______________ Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant / Registration Department would submit that pursuant to the insertion of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which was notified on 05.02.2009 and came into effect on 20.10.2016, the Registrar has right to refuse to register certain documents and under Clause (iii) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 22-A, when a property belongs to wakfs, which are under the superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, sanction from the competent authority is required. Since the property, which is the subject matter of the Gift Deed, belongs to the wakf and no sanction for alienation was obtained from the Wakf Board, the very registration of the Gift Deed is non est in law and therefore, the Sub Registrar, Chinnamanur, is right in withholding the document.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner would submit that the amendment to the Registration Act and the Waqf Act came into force subsequent to the registration of the Gift Deed and furthermore, even the objection now made by the Wakf Board was not informed to the writ petitioner to meet out the said objection. ______________ Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010
6. When an identical issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Sudha Ravi Kumar vs. The Special Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, reported in 2017 (3) CTC 135, the Division Bench of this Court, after due consideration of the facts, which are almost identical to the present case, has laid down the following directions:
“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.
______________ Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010
(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 consequential reliefs.
(iv) If the registering authority refuses to register the document acting on the objections raised by a religious institution under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the parties to the deed will be at liberty to straightaway approach the Civil Court for declaration of title and other relief without availing the opportunity for filing a statutory appeal.
(v) We further direct that if the deed has already been registered without there being any objection by the religious institution under Section 22-A of the Act, the document shall be returned to the parties concerned leaving it open for the religious institution to approach either the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Civil Court for appropriate relief as indicated above. ______________ Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010 At any rate, the registering authority shall not 33 withhold the deed which has already been registered.
(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” The above direction has been followed by this Court in the subsequent litigations. The only difference in fact to the instant case is that there is a reference about the earlier litigation regarding title over the property, however, there is no document furnished by the respondent / writ petitioner either before the Registering Authority or before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench.
7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appeals preferred by the Wakf Board and the Registration Department are liable to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is to be set aside.
8. This Court found that pending writ appeals, the respondent / writ petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 5 to 8 in W.A.(MD) No.176 of 2010. The dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the legal representatives of the deceased ______________ Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010 writ petitioner to approach the District Registrar, Theni District and to place all the records pertaining to the title to the subject property and if such representation is made, due notice be given to the Wakf Board and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law after hearing both parties, within a reasonable time.
9. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board placed a submission that unscrupulous persons try to register the properties of the Wakfs and other Religious Institutions by suppressing the facts and create encumbrance over the properties. To avoid such happenings in future, the proforma of the properties hold by the Wakfs may be linked with the Registration Department so that the concerned Registrar shall refuse to register the documents in respect of those properties.
10. This Court finds force in the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board. Therefore, this Court suggests to the Government that wherever there is a bar for registration of the document under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and the right conferred to the Registering Authority to refuse registration of documents on the ground that the property belongs to the State or the Local Body or to any other Religious ______________ Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010 Institutions etc., such details may be made available to the concerned Registration Department, so that registration of such properties by suppression of facts can be avoided.
11. In fine, the writ appeals are allowed and the order dated 07.01.2010 in W.P.(MD) No.12278 of 2009 is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.12278 of 2009 is dismissed. No costs.
[S.V.N., J.] [G.J., J.]
12.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Mandaveli, Chennai-28.
2.The Registrar, Registration, Periyakulam, Theni District.
3.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Registration, Markayan Kottai Road, Chinnamanur, Theni District.
______________ Page 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
krk W.A.(MD) Nos.162 & 176 of 2010 12.11.2021 ______________ Page 12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis