r-l
i
'A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 14377 OF 2022
Between:
1. Devi Reddy Raghava Reddy, S/o. Late D.Narasa Reddy, Aged about 64
years, Occ. Business, R/o. D.No.1/62, R.S. Road. Kadapa City, Y.S.R.
District.
2. Devi Reddy Sowmya, D/o. D. Raghav reddy. Aged about 36 years, Occ.
House Wife, R/o. aNO.1 /62, R.S. Road. Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District.
3. Devi Reddy Supraja, W/o. Late D.Ravindranath, Aged about 53 years,
Occ. House Wife, R/o. 1-95-1, Near SBI, R.S.Road, Yerramukkapall
i,
Kadapa, Y.S.R. District.
4. Devi Reddy Varun, S/o. Late D.Ravindranath, Aged
about 35 years,
Occ. Business, R/o. 1-95-1, Near SBI, R.S.Road, Yerramukkapalli,
Kadapa, Y.S.R. District.
5. Devi Reddy Aishwarya Reddy, W/o. P.Venkata Anirudh
Reddy, Aged
about 31 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. Villa No.24 The
Trails, Near OU
Colon, Manikonda, Pappalaguda, Ranga Reddy District.
...PETITIONERS
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal
Secretary,
Registrations and Stamps Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (Rural), Kadapa, Y.S.R.
District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,
the High Court
•/
may
be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction
more particularly
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the
one
action of the
respondent No.2 in refusing to entertain the Sale Deeds
for registration for
the land in an extent of Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.No.565/1,
Ac.0.90 cents in
Sy.No.571/1 and Ac.0.92
in Syl.NO,57-1/2 of Mamillapalli Village Fields
C.K. Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R.. District, stating that
the same is the subject
matter of a Civil Suit in OS.No.151 of 2006 on the
file of the court of the
Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, Y.S.R District for
partition, even though, the
petitioners are not parties to the suit and
no order of injunction is granted
restraining them from alienating the same as arbitrary,
illegal, contrary to the
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and also the
well established
legal
principles apart from being violative of the fundamental
and Constitutional
rights guaranteed to
us under Articles 14, 19, 21 and.300-A of the
Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondent No.2 to
entertain, the Sale Deeds for registration for the
lands in n extent of Ac.0.81.
cents in Sy.No.565/1, Ac,0.90
cents in Sy.No.571/1 and Ac.0.92 in
Sy.No.571/2 of Mamillapalli Village Fields
C.K.Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R.
District, without reference to the Judgment and Decree
dated 14.12.2011
made in A.S.No.54 of 2009
on the file of the Court of the First Additional
District Judge, Kadapa.
lA NO: 1 OF 2099
Petition under Section 151 CPC
praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed i
m support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to direct the respondent No.2 the
respondent No.2 to entertain the
Sale Deeds for registration for the lands i
- in an. extent of Ac.0.81 cents in
Sy.No.565/1, Ac.0.90 cents in Sy.No.571/1 and Ac.0.92
in Sy.No.571/2 of
Mamillapalli 'Village Fields, C.K.Dinne
Mandal, Y.S.R. District, without
reference to the Judgment and. Decree, dated 14.12.2011
made in
r
A.S.No.54 of 2009
on the file of the Court of the First Additional
District
Judge, Kadapa, pending disposal of the above
Writ. Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V. R.
REDDY KOWURI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2; GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
tr\v
'W.(P.^o.14377 of ^22
1
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
APHC010216832022
IN THE HIGH
[3332]
at AMARAVATl
(Special Original Jurisdiction)-
MONDAY ,THE THIRTIETH y
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
JUSTICE RAVI CHEENIALAPATI
THE HONOURABLE SRI
'mpit PFTITION mo- lASTTaoaa
Between:
...PETiTlONER(S)
Reddy Raghava Reddy and Others
Devi
AND
...RESPONDENT(S)
Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
The State
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.VR REDDY KOWURl
Counsel for the Respondent(S);
1.GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following.
ORDER
is that the Registering Authorities ^re
The grievance of the petitioners
in respect of the land in an
refusing to receive the sale deeds for registration in
No.565/1, Ac.0-90 cents in Survey No.571/1
extent of Ac.0-81 cents in Survey
Mamillapalli village Fields, C.K.Dinne
and Ac.0-92 cents in Survey No.571/2 of
said property is subject matter
the ground that the
Mandal, Y.S.R.District on
the file of the Court of the
in O.S.No.151 of 2006 pending on
of partition suit in
‘RC.J
.WtP.^o.mJJofZOZZ
2
Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, disregard to the facts that the petitioners are not
I
is granted restraining the
parties to the said suit and no orders of injunction
petitioners from alienating the said property.
2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kowuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
3. Sri V.R.Reddy Kowuri, learned counsel, in elaboration to what has
been stated in the affidavit contended that registration of a document cannot
be refused without assigning or recording reasons for refusal and refusing to
referring to the pending suit
entertain the sale deed for registration by merely
no restraint orders
to which the petitioners are not parties and moreover
there directing the registering authority from entertaining and registering
documents in relation to the subject property and therefore, the registering
authority is bound to receive and register the document. Further, the
the document presented
registering authority cannot refuse registration of
before him unless the subject property is included in the prohibited property
list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act or in view of Section 22-B or
Therefore, the action of
under Section 35(3) and 71 of the Registration Act.
the registering authority in refusing to register the document is illegal and
granting a writ of
arbitrary. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition
mandamus for the reliefs sought therein.
I
I
f
<RCJ
.W<P.!Nb.l4377of2022
3
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel
placed reliance on
the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad
in
j
G.Narasaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh^ and orders
passed by a
coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.
18797 of 2021
on
16.09.2021.
4. Whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
justified the
I
action of the Registering authorities in refusing to
receive and process the
document owing to pendency of the suit.
5. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioners in
G.Narasaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh referred to
supra, it has been
held thus:
"Section 71(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 undoubtedly
clothes the Sub-
Registrar with the authority, to refuse the registration but he has to support
the order of refusal by reasons to be recorded in his
Book No.2. That is not
the end of the matter but the Sub-Registrar has to record refusal to register
on the document itself, endorsing the words "registration
refused" exception
apart that is a document which relates to the property situate beyond his
defined territorial jurisdiction which is admittedly
inapplicable to the
controversy. The statute having made it obligatory on the Sub-Registrar to
record the refusal to register on the document, refusal
cannot be even
imagined unless document is presented before him. Thus
it is legally
impermissible for the Sub-Registrar to refuse the registration
without
presentation of the document."
6. Further, in the orders dated 16.09.2021 passed by
a coordinate
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18797 of 2021,
it has been held that
\ AIR 2011 AP 101
^,3 ^
14377 of2022
mere pendency of a suit is not a ground to refuse to
receive and register the
document presented for registration on the ground of
pendency of the suit
and therefore, the action of the registering authority
in not receiving the
document presented for registration is illegal and
arbitrary.
7. Moreover, the petitioners are not parties to the
pending suit referred
to by the registering authorities as a cause for refusal
to receive and process
the document as could be perceived from copy of the
plaint filed along with
the writ petition. According to the petitioners no
restraint orders or order of
injunction is granted in the said suit restraining
the parties from alienating the
property. Let us presume for a moment that even if
such an injunction or
restraint order is passed in the pending suit, the
petitioners not being parties
to the said suit they are not bound by such orders,
in view of the settled
principle of law that an order of injunction whether
passed in a suit or a
petition would operate only against the parties to
it. Howsoever proximate
or
remote a person may be connected to a party to proceeding
before a Court,
an order passed therein does not bind him, unless he
is a party thereto.
8. Therefore, the petitioners not being parties to
the pending suit and
no restraint or injunction orders are there injuncting
the petitioners from
I
alienating the property, the registering authority
cannot refuse to receive and
process the document on the ground of pendency of suit.
Hence, the action of
t
‘RCJ
‘.WiP.y^o. 14377 of2022
5
respondent no.2 in not receiving the document presented
for registration by
the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed
declaring the action
of respondent no.2 in refusing to entertain the sale
ddeds presented for
registration in the respect of the subject property
referred to supra as illegal
and arbitraty. Consequently, the respondent no.2 is
directed to receive,
process and register the documents presented by the
petitioners, if it is in
compliance of other requirements prescribed under Stamp
Act and
Registration Act, 1908. There shall be no order as
to costs. i
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/- M. SRINIVAS
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1 //TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Registrations and Stamps Department,State of
Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur
District.
2. The Sub-Registrar, Kadapa (Rural), Kadapa, Y.S.R.
District.
3. One CC to Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate [OPUC
4. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
5. Three CD Copies.
ssb
HIGH COURT
DATED:30/09/2024
ORDER
OF
WP.No.14377 of 2022 O® %
!73r 2 9 OCT 202^
m/
''X'S' C5/,
^ Current Section
'ivy
ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS