Ronda Venkata Rami Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3552 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 WRIT PETITION NO.18797 OF 2021
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in refusing to entertain the Sale Deeds for registration for the House Plots in an extent of Ac.0.04 Cents/938 links in Plot No.9 Ac.0.04 Cents/896 links in Plot No.10, Ac.0.06 Cents/790 links in Plot No.15, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.18, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.19, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.20, Ac.0.03 Cents/345 links in Plot No.34 Ac.0.03 Cents/914 links in Plot No.54, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.55, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.56, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.57, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.63, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.64, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.65, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.66, Ac.0.03 Cents/030 links in Plot No.85, Ac.0.05 Cents/050 links in Plot No.88, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.92, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.93, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.94, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.95, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.109, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.110, Ac.0.03 Cents/535 links in Plot No.111 and Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.114 out of Ac.7.46 cents in Sy.No.313/1 (with its sub-division numbers i.e.313/IA 313/1B 313/IC and 313/1D) V.M.R.Homes, Tadigotla Village Fields, Chintakommadinne Mandal, Y.S.R District stating that the same is the subject matter of a Civil Suit in O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge Kadapa, Y.S.R District for specific performance of the suit schedule properties i.e.Ac.3.73 Cents out of Ac.7.46 cents in Sy.No.313/1 Tadigotla Village Fields, Chintakommadinne Mandal, Y.S.R District, eventhough, the petitioner is not a party to the suit and no order of injunction is granted restraining the petitioner from alienating the same as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 and the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act ,1908 and settled principles of legal position apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner 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 House Plots in an extent of Ac.0.04 Cents/938 links in Plot No.9, Ac.0.04 Cents/896 links in Plot No.10, Ac.0.06 Cents/790 links in Plot No.15, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.18, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.19, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.20, Ac.0.03 Cents/345 links in Plot No.34 Ac.0.03 Cents/914 links in Plot No.54, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links MSM,J WP_18797_2021

in Plot No.55, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.56, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.57, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.63, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.64, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.65, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.66, Ac.0.03 Cents/030 links in Plot No.85, Ac.0.05 Cents/050 links in Plot No.88, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.92, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.93, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.94, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.95, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.109, Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.110, Ac.0.03 Cents/535 links in Plot No.111 and Ac.0.04 Cents/545 links in Plot No.114 out of Ac.7.46 cents in Sy.No.313/1 (with its sub-division numbers i.e.313/IA 313/1B 313/IC and 313/1D) V.M.R.Homes, Tadigotla Village Fields, Chintakommadinne Mandal, Y.S.R District without reference to the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa and process the same in accordance with the law."

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he purchased

house plots in Sy.No.313/1 (with its sub-division numbers viz.,

313/1A, 313/1B, 313/1C and 313/1D) Tadigotla Village Fields,

Chintakommadinne Mandal, Y.S.R. District, (hereinafter referred to

as the "subject house plots") in an unapproved layout prepared by

the vendors of the petitioner, through a Sale Deed, dated

18.11.2020 registered as Document No.8174 of 2020. Since, the

date of purchase, the subject house plots are in possession and

enjoyment without interference from anyone.

While the matter stood thus, when the petitioner intend to

sell the subject house plots in favour of the third parties and

approached respondent No.2 on 16.08.2021 for presentation of the

Sale Deed for registration, he refused to entertain the same for

registration stating that a Civil Suit in O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the

file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

instituted by one Yeturi Varalaskhmi and another against one

Pallpothula Venkata Subba Reddy and others, for specific

performance in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.3.73 cents MSM,J WP_18797_2021

out of Ac.7.46 cents in Sy.No.313/1 Tadigotla village fields,

Chintakommadinne Mandal, Y.S.R. District is pending

adjudication, and that the Survey Number of the subject House

Plots is the survey number of the schedule property in O.S.No.34

of 2020 and hence, the sale deed cannot be entertained for

registration of the same. Thereafter, the petitioner secured the copy

of the plaint in O.S.No.34 of 2020 pending adjudication on the file

of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa and

after going through the pleadings in the plaint, the petitioner came

to understand that the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs therein

for specific performance of agreement of sale said to have been

executed by the defendants therein in their favour and the

defendants therein seems to have remained ex-parte as the said

suit is collusive one and the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Kadapa granted status quo and the same is in subsistence.

Whereas, the petitioner is neither a party to the suit in O.S.No.34

of 2020 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Kadapa nor an injunction is granted restraining the

petitioner from alienating the subject House Plots in favour of the

third parties. Hence, respondent No.2 cannot refuse to entertain

the Sale Deed for registration in so for as the subject House Plots

are concerned, referring to the pendency of suit in O.S.No.34 of

2020.

The main contention of the petitioner is that the registration

of document can be refused under Section 71 of the Registration

Act, 1908 (for short "the Act 1908"), if a document is refused for

registration, the registering authority has to record reasons for

such refusal akin to the Rules 161 to 164 of the Andhra Pradesh MSM,J WP_18797_2021

Rules under the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the act of

respondent No.2 in refusing to entertain the sale deed for

registration for the subject land referring to the pendency of the

suit in O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the Court of III Additional

Junior Civil, Kadapa, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions

of the Registration Act, requested to issue a direction as claimed in

the petition.

Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner,

contended that when the suit is pending between two individuals;

when the petitioner is not a party to the said suit and no

injunction was obtained against the petitioner, the order passed in

the said suit is not binding on the petitioner. Apart from that, no

direction was issued against respondent No.2 from entertaining the

registration of any document relating to the property in dispute. In

the absence of any order, respondent No.2 is bound to receive,

process and register the document presented for registration.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his

contentions placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad "G.Narasaiah v. State of Andhra

Pradesh1", requested to issue a direction as claimed in the

petition.

Sri Narasimha Reddy.G.L, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Stamps and Registration supported the action of

respondent No.2.

AIR 2011 AP 101 MSM,J WP_18797_2021

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner purchased house

plots in Sy.No.313/1 of Tadigotla Village Fields,

Chintakommadinne Mandal, Y.S.R. District under registered sale

deed vide document No.8174 of 2020 dated 18.11.2020. When the

petitioner intend to sell the subject plots to third parties,

respondent No.2 refused to receive and process the sale deed

executed by the petitioner on the ground that O.S.No.34 of 2020

on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa

is pending in respect of the said land.

The survey number in the said suit O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the

file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa and the

survey number, where the subject plots are situated is one and the

same, but the petitioner is not a party to the said suit and no

interim order was granted against the petitioner or against

respondent No.2 directing him not to entertain any document

presented for registration of the property in dispute.

Hence, refusal to register the document on the ground that

the suit is pending between third parties is illegal. However, Sub-

registrar cannot refuse registration of the document presented

before him unless the subject property is included in the

prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration

Act,1908 or in view of Section 22-B or under Section 35(3) and 71

of the Registration Act,1908.

Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this

Court to a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad "G.Narasaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh" (referred MSM,J WP_18797_2021

supra), where the Court adverted to Section 71 (1) of the

Registration Act, concluded as follows:

"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."

In the present case on hand, the petitioner approached

respondent No.2 to present the document for registration of the

deed of conveyance, but respondent No.2 did not receive and

process the same for registration and refused to register the

document. If the principle laid down in "G.Narasaiah v. State of

Andhra Pradesh" (referred supra) is applied to the present facts of

the case, the act of respondent No.2 in refusing to receive the

document presented by the petitioner for registration is illegal and

arbitrary. Moreover, in "Syed Saleem v. The State of Andhra

Pradesh (W.P.No.39304 of 2014)", a question came up before the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad with reference to

pendency of Civil Revision Petition before the Court. In the said

Judgment, it was concluded 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." Finally, directed the

Sub-Registrar, Pullampet, Kadapa District shall process the MSM,J WP_18797_2021

document and release the same in favour of the petitioner therein.

Therefore, mere pendency of a suit and grant of interim order

against the respondent therein is not binding on the petitioner as

the interim order would operate against the parties to it, but not

against third parties.

If the principle laid down in the above judgment is applied to

the present facts of the case, mere pendency of suit O.S.No.34 of

2020 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Kadapa is not a ground to refuse to receive and register the

document presented for registration on the ground of pendency of

suit. Therefore, action of respondent No.2 in not receiving the

document presented for registration by the petitioner is illegal and

arbitrary.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the action

of the respondent No.2 in refusing to entertain the Sale Deeds

presented by the petitioner for registration of the House Plots

(referred supra) as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, respondent

No.2 is directed to receive, process and register the documents

presented by the petitioner if it is in compliance of other

requirements prescribed under the Registration Act, 1908. No

costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 16.09.2021 Ksp