High Court · 2024

W.P.No.14908 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.07.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADW.P.No.14908 of 2020andW.M.P.Nos.18506 & 18508 of 20201.B.Balachandran2.Mrs.Vijaya Lakshmi...Petitioners-Vs-1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Salem.2.The District Registrar, Salem West, Salem.3.Mr.Sengodan...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the case relating to the impugned order No.5086/E2/19 dated 10.06.2020 passed by the first respondent and to quash the said impugned order No.5086/E2/19 dated 10.06.2020 and pass such further orders.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020For Petitioners:Mr.T.RameshFor R1 & R2:Mr.P.AnandakumarGovernment AdvocateFor R3:Mr.K.M.AnandO R D E RThis writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the case relating to the impugned order No.5086/E2/19 dated 10.06.2020 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:-2.1 The petitioners were the owner of the land measuring 4900 sq.ft. consisting in Survey No.21/1 situated at Vembaneri Village, Salem District. The Petitioners were also managing the family deity of Karuppusamy Temple situated at Manmadha Valavu, Vembaneri Village, Salem District. The said deity, Sri Karuppusamy, is housed in a small structure with a compound wall. For many years, the Petitioners managed the affairs of the said Private Temple as a Dharmakarta appointed by a majority of the family members and relatives. 2.2 During the year 2012, on a particular festival day, the family members discussed and decided to construct a temple and extend the area of 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020the temple for the family deity, Sri Karuppusamy. In this regard, a request was also made for permitting the land belonging to the Petitioners in Survey No.21/1, measuring 4900 sq.ft to be used for the said purpose. Accordingly, the first Petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife, Mrs.Vijayalakshmi vide Settlement Deed No.2568 of 2013 on the file of 2nd respondent. Subsequently, the second petitioner, wife of the first Petitioner further executed another Settlement Deed in No.2669 of 2013 in favour of the first Petitioner for the purpose of using the said land for Sri Karuppusamy Temple. All along, the possession of the said property has been vested with the Petitioners only and the same has not been transferred or conveyed to any other third party. Since the Petitioners were prevented from being involved in the management of the construction activities and threatened with dire consequences if they stepped into the above said land, the Petitioners decided to cancel the Settlement Deed made by their wife, Mrs.Vijayalakshmi. Hence, the cancellation deed was filed and the earlier Settlement deed 2669 of 2013 was cancelled vide Registered Document No.2805 of 2019.2.3 Be that as it may, the 3rd Respondent filed a complaint before the 2nd Respondent to recall the cancellation of the settlement deed 2669 of 2013 on the file of the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent conducted an enquiry and after granting a personal hearing and considering all the submissions of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020the 3rd Respondent and Petitioners and passed an order dated 30.09.2019. The 2nd Respondent has observed that, since the parties to the Settlement Deed namely, executor and the beneficiary have signed the cancellation deed no.2805 of 2019, the cancellation deed is a valid one in the eyes of law. Further, the 2nd Respondent relied upon Circular No.41530/01/2017 dated 08.11.2017 and Sections 82 & 83 of Registration Act to hold that the 2nd Respondent has no power to recall the registered document. In this regard, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the complaint and request made by the 3rd Respondent were rejected. 2.4 The 3rd Respondent filed an appeal before the 1st Respondent against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent herein. In the said appeal filed by the 3rd Respondent, the 1st Respondent herein passed an order dated 10.06.2020. The 1st Respondent erroneously relied upon the provisions under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959, and held that the property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and therefore, the cancellation of Settlement Deed by the Petitioners is contrary to Section 34 of the TN HR & CE Act. The order passed by the 1st Respondent is beyond the scope of the issue involved in the present proceedings before the 2nd Respondent and in the appellate 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020proceedings before the 1st Respondent. The property in question is private property and was never settled in favour of the HR & CE Department. It is not the case of the 3rd Respondent that the property belongs to TN HR & CE. The entire transaction involved in the present case is between the private parties and there is no involvement of TN HR & CE Department. Further, the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the Registration Act, 1968. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent comes to the conclusion that the temple property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department as per Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and prior permission has to be obtained to cancel the settlement deed, whereas in this case it was not obtained. Hence, the first respondent declared Doc.No.2805/2019 as a fraudulent document. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that despite the interim order passed by this Court, the third respondent as well as the village people constructed the temple and they have not taken any contempt proceedings 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020and now the people of the village are worshipping. The learned counsel for the petitioners had made a categorical statement that this property will be used only for temple purposes, not for any other purpose and the village people will not be prohibited from worshipping the subject matter temple under any circumstances.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 10.06.2020, which reads as follows: @,e;epiyapy;. fUg;g[rhkp nfhtpYf;fhf vd;W vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;Ltpl;l epiyapy;. nkw;go brhj;J jkpH;ehL ,e;J rka mwf;fl;lisfs; rl;lk; gphpt[ 34-d;go nfhapYf;Fr; brhe;jkhd epykhFk; (Endowment Property). nkw;go epyk; ,e;J rkak; kw;Wk; mwf;fl;lisf;F cl;gl;l epykhFk; (Endowment Property). nkw;go brhj;jpid (Endowment Property) jd;dpr;irahf jh;kfh;j;jh vd;w Kiwapy; uj;J Mtzk; vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ jkpH;ehL ,e;J rka mwf;fl;lisfs; rl;lk; gphpt[ 34-f;F KuzhdjhFk;/ ,e;Jrka mwpepiyaj;Jiwapd; mDkjp ,y;yhky; jd;dpr;irahf jh;kfh;j;jh vd;w Kiwapy; fUg;g[rhkp nfhapYf;F vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;l nfhapy; brhj;jpid 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020(Endowment Property) vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;l uj;J Mtzk; Vw;fj;jf;fjy;y/ nkw;go Mtz vz; 2805/19 xU Kiwaw;w Mtzk; (Fraudulent Document) vd jPh;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,e;J rka mwepiyaj; Jiwf;F brhe;jkhd brhj;jpid ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiwapd; mDkjpapy;yhky; jd;dpr;irahf jh;kfh;j;jh vd;w Kiwapy; vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;l uj;J Mtz vz; 2805/2019 xU nkhro Mtzk; (Fraudulently registered document) vdj; jPh;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/@6. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the first respondent on 02.09.2022 and on behalf of the third respondent on 20.06.2024.7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 was directed to get instructions how the first respondent came to the conclusion that the property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and it is a fraudulent document, the learned Government Advocate replied that there is no document available with the first respondent to substantiate the same except the impugned order. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent admitted that the temple is a private temple 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020and does not belong to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department as stated by the first respondent in the impugned order dated 10.06.2020.9. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.10. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and in the absence of documents to prove that it is a Endowment property and belongs to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department the cancellation deed document is a fraudulent document. The impugned order No.5086/E2/19 dated 10.06.2020 passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.09.07.2024cdaIndex : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking order8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020To1.The Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Oulgaret, ECR Road (Opp. to Latha Steel House), Lawspet, Puducherry. J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.cdaW.P.No.14908 of 20209/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 202009.07.202410/10

W.P.No.14908 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.07.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADW.P.No.14908 of 2020andW.M.P.Nos.18506 & 18508 of 20201.B.Balachandran2.Mrs.Vijaya Lakshmi...Petitioners-Vs-1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Salem.2.The District Registrar, Salem West, Salem.3.Mr.Sengodan...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the case relating to the impugned order No.5086/E2/19 dated 10.06.2020 passed by the first respondent and to quash the said impugned order No.5086/E2/19 dated 10.06.2020 and pass such further orders.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020For Petitioners:Mr.T.RameshFor R1 & R2:Mr.P.AnandakumarGovernment AdvocateFor R3:Mr.K.M.AnandO R D E RThis writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the case relating to the impugned order No.5086/E2/19 dated 10.06.2020 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:-2.1 The petitioners were the owner of the land measuring 4900 sq.ft. consisting in Survey No.21/1 situated at Vembaneri Village, Salem District. The Petitioners were also managing the family deity of Karuppusamy Temple situated at Manmadha Valavu, Vembaneri Village, Salem District. The said deity, Sri Karuppusamy, is housed in a small structure with a compound wall. For many years, the Petitioners managed the affairs of the said Private Temple as a Dharmakarta appointed by a majority of the family members and relatives. 2.2 During the year 2012, on a particular festival day, the family members discussed and decided to construct a temple and extend the area of 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020the temple for the family deity, Sri Karuppusamy. In this regard, a request was also made for permitting the land belonging to the Petitioners in Survey No.21/1, measuring 4900 sq.ft to be used for the said purpose. Accordingly, the first Petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife, Mrs.Vijayalakshmi vide Settlement Deed No.2568 of 2013 on the file of 2nd respondent. Subsequently, the second petitioner, wife of the first Petitioner further executed another Settlement Deed in No.2669 of 2013 in favour of the first Petitioner for the purpose of using the said land for Sri Karuppusamy Temple. All along, the possession of the said property has been vested with the Petitioners only and the same has not been transferred or conveyed to any other third party. Since the Petitioners were prevented from being involved in the management of the construction activities and threatened with dire consequences if they stepped into the above said land, the Petitioners decided to cancel the Settlement Deed made by their wife, Mrs.Vijayalakshmi. Hence, the cancellation deed was filed and the earlier Settlement deed 2669 of 2013 was cancelled vide Registered Document No.2805 of 2019.2.3 Be that as it may, the 3rd Respondent filed a complaint before the 2nd Respondent to recall the cancellation of the settlement deed 2669 of 2013 on the file of the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent conducted an enquiry and after granting a personal hearing and considering all the submissions of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020the 3rd Respondent and Petitioners and passed an order dated 30.09.2019. The 2nd Respondent has observed that, since the parties to the Settlement Deed namely, executor and the beneficiary have signed the cancellation deed no.2805 of 2019, the cancellation deed is a valid one in the eyes of law. Further, the 2nd Respondent relied upon Circular No.41530/01/2017 dated 08.11.2017 and Sections 82 & 83 of Registration Act to hold that the 2nd Respondent has no power to recall the registered document. In this regard, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the complaint and request made by the 3rd Respondent were rejected. 2.4 The 3rd Respondent filed an appeal before the 1st Respondent against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent herein. In the said appeal filed by the 3rd Respondent, the 1st Respondent herein passed an order dated 10.06.2020. The 1st Respondent erroneously relied upon the provisions under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 1959, and held that the property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and therefore, the cancellation of Settlement Deed by the Petitioners is contrary to Section 34 of the TN HR & CE Act. The order passed by the 1st Respondent is beyond the scope of the issue involved in the present proceedings before the 2nd Respondent and in the appellate 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020proceedings before the 1st Respondent. The property in question is private property and was never settled in favour of the HR & CE Department. It is not the case of the 3rd Respondent that the property belongs to TN HR & CE. The entire transaction involved in the present case is between the private parties and there is no involvement of TN HR & CE Department. Further, the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the Registration Act, 1968. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent comes to the conclusion that the temple property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department as per Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and prior permission has to be obtained to cancel the settlement deed, whereas in this case it was not obtained. Hence, the first respondent declared Doc.No.2805/2019 as a fraudulent document. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that despite the interim order passed by this Court, the third respondent as well as the village people constructed the temple and they have not taken any contempt proceedings 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020and now the people of the village are worshipping. The learned counsel for the petitioners had made a categorical statement that this property will be used only for temple purposes, not for any other purpose and the village people will not be prohibited from worshipping the subject matter temple under any circumstances.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 10.06.2020, which reads as follows: @,e;epiyapy;. fUg;g[rhkp nfhtpYf;fhf vd;W vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;Ltpl;l epiyapy;. nkw;go brhj;J jkpH;ehL ,e;J rka mwf;fl;lisfs; rl;lk; gphpt[ 34-d;go nfhapYf;Fr; brhe;jkhd epykhFk; (Endowment Property). nkw;go epyk; ,e;J rkak; kw;Wk; mwf;fl;lisf;F cl;gl;l epykhFk; (Endowment Property). nkw;go brhj;jpid (Endowment Property) jd;dpr;irahf jh;kfh;j;jh vd;w Kiwapy; uj;J Mtzk; vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ jkpH;ehL ,e;J rka mwf;fl;lisfs; rl;lk; gphpt[ 34-f;F KuzhdjhFk;/ ,e;Jrka mwpepiyaj;Jiwapd; mDkjp ,y;yhky; jd;dpr;irahf jh;kfh;j;jh vd;w Kiwapy; fUg;g[rhkp nfhapYf;F vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;l nfhapy; brhj;jpid 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020(Endowment Property) vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;l uj;J Mtzk; Vw;fj;jf;fjy;y/ nkw;go Mtz vz; 2805/19 xU Kiwaw;w Mtzk; (Fraudulent Document) vd jPh;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,e;J rka mwepiyaj; Jiwf;F brhe;jkhd brhj;jpid ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiwapd; mDkjpapy;yhky; jd;dpr;irahf jh;kfh;j;jh vd;w Kiwapy; vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;l uj;J Mtz vz; 2805/2019 xU nkhro Mtzk; (Fraudulently registered document) vdj; jPh;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ/@6. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the first respondent on 02.09.2022 and on behalf of the third respondent on 20.06.2024.7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 was directed to get instructions how the first respondent came to the conclusion that the property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and it is a fraudulent document, the learned Government Advocate replied that there is no document available with the first respondent to substantiate the same except the impugned order. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent admitted that the temple is a private temple 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020and does not belong to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department as stated by the first respondent in the impugned order dated 10.06.2020.9. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.10. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and in the absence of documents to prove that it is a Endowment property and belongs to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department the cancellation deed document is a fraudulent document. The impugned order No.5086/E2/19 dated 10.06.2020 passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed.In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.09.07.2024cdaIndex : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non Speaking order8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 2020To1.The Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Oulgaret, ECR Road (Opp. to Latha Steel House), Lawspet, Puducherry. J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.cdaW.P.No.14908 of 20209/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14908 of 202009.07.202410/10