Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
22. 06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.4178 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2014 K.Vasantha ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Office of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, No.48, Muthusamy Nagar, Thiruppathur Road, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order in Check Memo No.A.Thi.Mu.No.XXXX/2014, dated 05.02.2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the first respondent to register the settlement deeds, dated 04.02.2014 of the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondents ... Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order in Check Memo No.A.Thi.Mu.No.XXXX/2014, dated 05.02.2014 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the first respondent to register the settlement deeds, dated 04.02.2014 of the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner purchased the properties in S.Nos.373/2A, 373/10, 373/2B, 73/2B1 (Patta Nos.2069 and 3215), to an extent of 2 acres and 28 cents, situated at Rameswaram Revenue Village, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanthapuram District, for valuable consideration from the legal heirs of Murugappa Chettiyar and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and on his demise, the petitioner has been continuing to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the first respondent on 04.02.2014, to register a settlement deed in respect of a portion of the said properties in favour of her sons. Meanwhile, the second respondent, by his communication dated 18.10.2011, informed the first respondent not to register any document in respect of the above said properties, as they are in possession of H.R. & C.E. Department, based on which, the first respondent passed the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to furnish the 'No Objection Certificate' from the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition.
4. According to the petitioner, as per the orders of the Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Ramanathapuram, dated 04.07.2011 and 20.07.2011, the hereditary trustee of V.R.Chathiram, namely, Murugappan, son of Murugappa Chettiyar, informed the second respondent and the Inspector of H.R. & C.E., Ramanathapuram, that the said properties belonged to the family of Murugappa Chettiyar and not under the control of the H.R. & C.E. Department.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court in A.Kumaran and another v. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District [W.P(MD)Nos.887 and 888 of 2012, decided on 11.12.2012]. and prayed for passing similar orders in this writ petition.
6. Though notice of motion was ordered by this Court as early as on 10.03.2014, till date, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
7. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the claim of the petitioner would be considered by the authority concerned in the light of the earlier order passed by this Court in the above said decision and prayed for passing appropriate orders.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
9. In similar circumstances, this Court, in A.Kumaran and another v. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District [W.P(MD)Nos.887 and 888 of 2012, decided on 11.12.2012]., has held as under: "4. The material papers available on record would show that the petitioners herein have purchased the subject property for valuable consideration from the legal heirs of Murugappa Chettiyar. When they approached the first respondent to execute a settlement deed in favour of some other persons, the same was rejected since the HR&CE Department has made a claim over the property. But absolutely no document was produced by the second respondent to show that the property belongs to the HR&CE Department.
5. But, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the HR&CE Department that the documents pertaining to the subject property has been lost by the department. However on instruction given by the Inspector of HR and CE Department, the first respondent is nowrefusing to register the documents. Therefore the question that has to be considered now is that whether the act of the first respondent in refusing to register the document is correct or not.
6. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to extract Rule 55 which reads as follows: "Rule 55. It forms no part of a registering officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below:- a) that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be; b) that the document is forged; C) that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity; d) that the executing party is not legally dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration; and e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic."
7. A close reading of the above said rule shows that the registering authority is bound to consider the objections raised on any of the grounds stated in rule 55 of Tamil Nadu Registration Act. So far as the present case is considered, it is the claim of the department that the subject property belongs to them. But they are unable to produce any document to show that they are in ownership of the said land. The Registering Officer has to decide whether to admit and register the documents or not only based on the grounds mentioned in Rule 55 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act. But so far as the present case is concerned, the refusal to register the documents by the first respondent is not based on the grounds stipulated under rule 55 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Act. Therefore in my considered opinion, the Check Memo, dated 13.12.2011 issued by the first respondent refusing to register the settlement deed is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed.
8. In view of the same, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the first respondent is directed to register the settlement deeds, dated 13.12.2011 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs."
10. Following the same, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in Check Memo No.A.Thi.Mu.No.XXXX/2014, dated 05.02.2014, is quashed. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to register the settlement deed(s), dated 04.02.2014, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. To:
1. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Office of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, No.48, Muthusamy Nagar, Thiruppathur Road, Sivagangai District.