Disputed temple title cannot justify refusal of registration; ownership must be resolved by civil court.

The appellant challenged the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register a settlement deed in favour of his wife. The refusal was based on a 2018 communication from the temple’s Executive Officer asserting that the property belonged to the temple, and on Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

The property derived from lands for which the Minor Inams Tribunal had directed ryotwari pattas to be granted in 1970; that decision was not challenged and the lands were subsequently conveyed and developed as a layout.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding the temple’s objection sustainable and directing the authorities to take appropriate action.

The appellant appealed.

Whether the Single Judge could, in a writ petition challenging a Sub-Registrar’s refusal slip, examine and question the merits of the Tribunal’s final patta proceedings.

Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration under Section 22-A based on the temple’s claim of ownership when title was disputed and the objection rested on the temple’s communication.

Section 8(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 provides for ryotwari patta where qualifying land granted for a religious institution’s support or service was transferred by sale and the transferee or successor had the prescribed period of exclusive possession.

Section 11 prescribes notice and an inquiry into patta claims, while Section 46 makes orders under the Act final subject to the Act’s appeal or revision mechanisms.

Section 21(3) addresses the options available to a service-holder entitled to patta, including discharge of the service condition upon payment.

Under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, registration may be barred in respect of property belonging to a religious institution; however, where ownership is disputed, the registering authority’s limited summary inquiry does not empower it to determine title, which must be resolved by a competent civil court.

The Court relied on P. Jeganathan v. Inspector General of Registration (W.A.(MD) Nos. 260 and 261 of 2023), Sudha Ravi Kumar v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner, HR&CE Department, 2017 (3) CTC 135, and D. Kalaiyarasan v. Inspector General of Registration, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 7224, among other authorities, on the limits of the registering authority’s inquiry and the need for evidence of institutional title before refusing registration.

The Tribunal’s 1970 decision followed proceedings under Section 11, including notice to the relevant authorities, and was not challenged through the statutory remedies; the Court therefore held that its merits could not be reopened collaterally in proceedings directed only at the refusal slip.

The temple’s 2018 letter showed awareness of the patta proceedings and subsequent dealings, but did not itself establish title. Because title was disputed, the Sub-Registrar could not resolve that dispute through the registration process or refuse registration solely on the basis of the letter.

The Court clarified that the finality of the patta proceedings did not extinguish the temple’s right to assert title in a civil court; if the temple sought to recover the land, it would have to establish its claim there.

It directed the Sub-Registrar to register the appellant’s settlement deed forthwith, while clarifying that registration would not prevent the temple from establishing its title before the competent civil court.