Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Probably the time has come to include church properties also within the scope of Section 22-A of the Registration Act: Madras High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has ordered the registration of a sale deed that was previously refused by the Sub Registrar of Tiruppathur. Justice G.R. Swaminathan emphasized that the refusal was based on an erroneous interpretation of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which does not currently include church properties. The court also underscored the necessity for legislative amendments to extend similar protections to church properties as those provided for Hindu and Islamic religious endowments.

Facts of the Case: The petitioner, Shalin, purchased a property measuring 1345 square feet in Tiruppathur, Sivagangai District, from Vijaya through a sale deed dated 28.03.2023. Upon presenting the sale deed for registration, the Sub Registrar refused to register the document, citing a refusal check slip grounded in a prior court directive and an Inspector General of Registration circular. Shalin challenged this refusal through a writ petition.

Refusal Based on Misinterpretation: Justice G.R. Swaminathan found that the refusal to register the sale deed was unjustified, noting that the cited circular and court order did not apply in this context. The court observed, "The circular issued by the IG of Registration on 24.05.2017 was a mere communication of an interim order which ceased to have effect following the disposal of the main writ petition."

Legislative Gaps: The court highlighted a significant legislative gap, stating, "It is surprising that church properties are not granted similar protection as those endowed under Hindu and Islamic laws." Justice Swaminathan called for legislative action to include church properties under the scope of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, emphasizing the principle of secularism in India and the need for equal treatment of all religions.

Examination of Section 22-A: The court extensively discussed the scope of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, which mandates the refusal to register documents related to properties belonging to the state, local authorities, or religious endowments covered by specific legislations. Justice Swaminathan stated, "Section 22-A must be strictly construed and its scope confined to what the restrictive provisions specifically envisage."

The court reasoned that the sale deed in question should be registered as there was no statutory basis for its refusal. The decision pointed out that the previous sale and settlement deeds involving the property were legally registered, and the revenue records were updated accordingly. Therefore, the refusal lacked justification under the current legal framework.

Justice Swaminathan remarked, "Probably the time has come to include church properties also within the scope of Section 22-A of the Act. As on date, Section 22-A is not applicable to transactions involving church properties."

This judgment by the Madras High Court underscores the importance of clear legislative provisions for the registration of religious properties. By directing the registration of the sale deed, the court has highlighted a critical gap in the protection of church properties and called for necessary amendments to ensure equal treatment of all religious endowments. This ruling is expected to prompt legislative review and potentially lead to more inclusive protections under the Registration Act.

 

Date of Decision: April 17, 2024

Shalin vs. The District Registrar, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District and Another

Similar News