IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
****
W.A.No.796 of 2022 Between:
Smt. M.Suchitra @ Tummalacherla Suchitra, W/o. T.L.Prasad, aged about 52 years, Occ: House wife, Rep. by her Regd. GPA holder (vide doc. No.39 & 40 of 2022) namely Sri Baira Shankar, S/o. Late Rajaiah, aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.20-32/6, Kodanda Ram Nagar, P&T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-60 & 3 others Appellants VERSUS Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi, W/o. Sri S.Malla Reddy (D/o. Late Sri Akula Janga Reddy), aged 66 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Plot No.26, Krishna Reddy Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011 & 17 others Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 08.12.2022 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes __________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022 * THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY + W.A.No.796 of 2022 % 08.12.2022 # Between:
Smt. M.Suchitra @ Tummalacherla Suchitra, W/o. T.L.Prasad, aged about 52 years, Occ: House wife, Rep. by her Regd. GPA holder (vide doc. No.39 & 40 of 2022) namely Sri Baira Shankar, S/o. Late Rajaiah, aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.20-32/6, Kodanda Ram Nagar, P&T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-60 & 3 others Appellants VERSUS Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi, W/o. Sri S.Malla Reddy (D/o. Late Sri Akula Janga Reddy), aged 66 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Plot No.26, Krishna Reddy Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011 & 17 others Respondents ! Counsel for Appellants : Mr. Bethi Venkateshwarlu ^ Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3: Mr. C.Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7: Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao <GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred T.Ganesh v. State of Telangana, Writ Petition Nos.26137, 22303, 26207 & 26236 of 2019, decided on 23.01.2020.
3 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.796 of 2022
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.796 of 2022 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. C.Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3; and Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for respondent Nos.4 to 7.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.Nos.4 to 6 of 2022 in Writ Petition No.12701 of 2021 rejecting the stay vacate petitions of the appellants.
3. We may mention that respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 as writ petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.12701 of 2021. Initially appellants were not arrayed as parties therein. Subsequently, they got themselves impleaded as respondent Nos.18 to 21.
4 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.796 of 2022
4. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 have filed the related writ petition seeking the following relief:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in entertaining and registering the sale deeds and other conveyance deeds in favour of prospective purchasers in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.120-Adm.Ac.5.15gts, Sy.No.121-Adm. Ac.5.02 gts, Sy.No.122-Adm.Ac.2.04gts, Sy. No.123-Adm.Ac.1.31gts, Sy.No.124/1 Adm-Ac.0.22gts, Sy.No.124/2-Adm.Ac.0.02gts, Sy.No.125-Adm.Ac.1.16gts, Sy. No.126-Adm.Ac.0.38gts, Sy.No.127-Adm.Ac.1.13gts, Sy.No. 139-adm.Ac.15.08gts, Sy.No.140, adm.Ac.12.07gts, Sy.No. 141, adm.Ac.7.22gts, Sy.No.155-adm.Ac.13.37gte, Sy.No.156, adm-Ac.6.13gts and Sy.No.157, adm-Ac.20.08gts, totally admeasuring Ac.93.38gts situated at Kuntloor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, despite acknowledging the representation, dated 25.06.2020 (received on 27.07.2020) and 22.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner thereby informing the respondent No.4 about the ad-interim Injunction granted by learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar restraining the respondent Nos.5 to 15 from alienating or transferring the petition schedule "A to C" properties till disposal of the suit in OS.No.383 of 2013 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Standing Order 219(b), the circular memo, dated 10.03.2010 issued by 2nd respondent and also the various orders of this Hon'ble Court including Common Order, dated 23.01.2020 in Wp.Nos.26137,22303,26207 & 26236 of 2019 in the interest of justice and consequently direct the respondent No.4 not to 5 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022 entertain and register any sale-deed/s or conveyance deed/s in respect of the above subject land covered by ad-interim injunction orders in IA.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2013 in OS. No.383 of 2013 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case."
5. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 also filed Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.12701 of 2021 for a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District not to entertain and register any sale deed(s) or conveyance deed(s) in favour of prospective purchasers in respect of the land mentioned above. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 had contended that they have filed O.S.No.383 of 2013 before the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for partition and separate possession of Schedule-A to Schedule-C properties which are part of the above properties; besides seeking mandatory injunction to remove illegal structures thereon. They had filed interlocutory applications being I.A.Nos.1132 & 1133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013 wherein civil court passed an order on 01.04.2013 granting ad-interim injunction as prayed for. Thereafter civil court also passed an order providing for police 6 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022 protection to respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 when there was an attempt to violate the injunction order.
6. Grievance made before the learned Single Judge was that notwithstanding such injunction order, several parties notebly respondent Nos.5 to 15 were alienating the concerned properties in favour of third parties. Representation was made before the Sub-Registrar not to entertain request for registration of sale deeds etc., for alienation of land since the properties in question is subject matter of a civil suit with pending injunction order.
7. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 also relied upon Standing Order No.219 dated 10.03.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Government of Telangana which states that if any court order restraining alienation of property is brought to the notice of the registering authority, the registering authority would be estopped from going ahead with registration.
8. On 04.06.2021, learned Single Judge granted interim stay as prayed for in the following manner:
7 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.796 of 2022
"On 01.04.2013, the Court of II Additional District Judge at Ranga Reddy District granted injunction order restraining the respondents/ defendants from alienating or transferring the schedule A, B and C properties in I.A.No.1132 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013. After contest, the said order is affirmed. Petitioners allege that even though the respondent authorities were informed about granting of injunction order, they are entertaining the documents for registration. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a deed of conveyance registered by the registering authority on 25.02.2021 and alleges that the registering authority is continued to register the deeds of conveyance. Having regard to the same, there shall be interim direction as prayed for. Petitioners are also directed to upload the orders passed by the trial Court as well as this Court in the present writ petition in 'DHARANI' web portal."
9. Appellants after getting themselves impleaded as respondent Nos.8 to 21 filed interlocutory applications being I.A.Nos.4 to 6 of 2022 for vacating the order dated 04.06.2021.
10. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 29.10.2022 declined to vacate the interim order but granted leave to the appellants to file appropriate application before the trial Court for modification of the injunction order.
8 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.796 of 2022
11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been preferred.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants are not parties to O.S.No.383 of 2013 stated to have been instituted by respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Therefore, the injunction order obtained by respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 in the said civil suit would not be binding or effective on the appellants. Appellants had purchased the property following the due process; therefore the registering authority cannot refuse registration of the sale deed. Learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the stay vacate petitions.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In addition, he has also placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in T.Ganesh v. State of Telangana, Writ Petition Nos.26137, 22303, 26207 & 26236 of 2019, decided on 23.01.2020.
14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.
9 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.796 of 2022
15. We have already noted the initial interim order passed by the learned Single Judge.
16. The stay vacate petitions filed by the appellants were rejected by the learned Single Judge vide the order dated 29.10.2022. Relevant portion of the order dated 29.10.2022 reads as under:
"Admittedly, in the present case, the trial Court has granted injunction orders on 01.04.2013 in I.A.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013 and the same was subsequently made absolute by the trial Court vide its orders dated 23.01.2020 in I.A.Nos.266 and 268 of 2018 in I.A.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is only seeking to direct the respondent No.4 to receive and register the subject documents in accordance with the Standing Orders, more particularly, Standing Order 219, issued by the respondent No.2. Even though the learned counsel for the vacate petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mandali Ranganna's case (supra), having regard to the fact that the injunction orders passed by a competent civil Court are subsisting in respect of the suit schedule property, the remedy open to the vacate petitioners is to file appropriate application before the very same trial Court seeking their impleadment in O.S.No.383 of 2013 and also for vacating the injunction orders. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that once the trial Court has passed the injunction 10 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022 orders and has also given police protection, if any direction is issued to the official respondents to register the documents presented by the unofficial respondents, the very purpose of passing the injunction orders will be defeated.
Having regard to the above, this Court does not find any reason to modify the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.12701 of 2021. However, it is left open to the vacate petitioners for filing appropriate application before the trial Court seeking modification or vacation of the injunction orders dated 01.04.2013 in I.A.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013. If any such application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present order."
17. From the above, we find that learned Single Judge had taken the view that once the trial court has passed the injunction order and has also granted police protection, any direction issued to the registering authority to register the documents presented by the unofficial respondents would frustrate the very purpose of the injunction order. Therefore, learned Single Judge did not find any good reason to modify the order dated 04.06.2021. However, learned Single Judge gave liberty to the vacate petitioners i.e., the appellants to file appropriate application before the trial court for modification or vacation of the injunction order, in which event it 11 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022 was observed that trial court would consider the same on its own merit.
18. Though T.Ganesh (supra) is a decision of a Single Bench of this Court, certain observations made therein qua Standing Order No.219 would be relevant. As noticed above, Standing Order No.219 restrains the registering authority from registering any sale deed etc., in the event there is an injunction order of any court of law. Standing Order No.219 reads as follows:
"An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering officer against the registration of a document executed by such person effecting such property,
(b) "If the Andhra Pradesh High Court or any other Civil Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of the Registering Officer or served on the Registering Officer, the Registering Officer is estopped from going ahead with the Registration"."
19. Learned Single Judge in T.Ganesh (supra) referred to various decisions of this Court where scope of the Standing Order was gone into. Thereafter, learned Single Judge held that the Standing Order has the salutary effect of preventing frustration of 12 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022 a litigating party enjoying injunction order of the court. It also sub-serves a larger public interest by seeking to prevent vexatious litigation flowing out of registration of a document in respect of land which is subject matter of litigation with restraint order. It has been held as follows:
"14. When a property is subject matter of a case pending before competent Court and such Court passed restraint order, no transactions should be permitted to frustrate the litigation and affect the rights of a party to the litigation. It would also prevent vexatious litigation and third party claims. Though registration of a deed of conveyance cannot vest a better title on the vendee than what was vested in the vendor and transactions made during the pendency of a suit would abide the result of the suit, it is unfortunate but true that registered deed of conveyance is made basis for all further claims; transactions; changing physical features etc. Further, it is always open to a party to the litigation to file appropriate application before the Court which granted injunction to seek modification/ vacation of the order/ to permit to undertake conveyance of the property in issue.
15. Registering Authority has no role in a dispute between two parties on a landed property and parties are free to agitate/resolve their disputes in the court of law.
Registering Authority cannot even be a proforma party to a civil litigation where no relief is sought against him. No declaration can be sought against him. He is only required to discharge his statutory function vested in him under the Registration Act while processing a document presented before 13 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022 him. He does not assess the validity of claims of parties to the document. His role is limited to verifying compliance of Stamp Act and the Registration Act to the document presented before him. As a statutory authority vested with power to deal with registration of documents presented before him, once he is informed that competent Court granted injunction concerning the subject property, he should not undertake processing of the document and should leave it to that Court to regulate the proceedings in the dispute. In view thereof, it is no more open to petitioners to contend that as Registering Authority is not a party to the suit, the injunction order cannot be an obstacle to process the document.
16. The Standing Order 219 (b) also sub-serves larger public interest. It seeks to prevent vexatious litigation flowing out of registration of a document and such course cannot be held as amounting to illegal exercise of power. The stark reality is registration of a document concerning immovable property spins off multiple transactions and generates third party claims/litigation. In the present context of long pending litigation in Courts, it is helping the fraudsters to create multiple transactions and spinning off more litigation. All this can be averted if the registering authority exercises his restraint. All this spin off can be averted if registration of the document, concerning a property which is subject matter of a case pending in competent Court and that Court granted injunction, is denied. It may be true that the litigation instituted on the property is vexatious/fraudulent and intend to blockmail/harass a true owner of the property and deprive him from enjoying the property, but this is for the competent Court to assess and to pass appropriate orders. It is no part of the registering authority's job to go into those aspects."
14 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.796 of 2022
20. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in T.Ganesh (surpa) and approve the same.
21. As highlighted by the learned Single Judge, Standing Order No.219(b) sub-serves a greater public interest by preventing vexatious litigation and third party claims during pendency of a civil suit with injunction order in force.
22. Registering authority as a statutory authority vested with the power to deal with registration of documents presented before him, is bound to comply with orders of the competent court granting injunction in respect of the property for alienation of which sale deed is sought to be registered before him.
23. In such circumstances and having regard to the above, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference.
24. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
15 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.796 of 2022
25. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
___________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 08.12.2022 KL