Chittari Amaravathi Venkatesh ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1281 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                  WRIT PETITION No.5539 of 2022

ORDER:

The challenge in this writ petition is to the orders in appeal vide

proceedings No.E1/2366-A/2021, dated 31.01.2022 passed by the 2nd

respondent dismissing the appeal filed by the writ petitioners and

confirming the refusal order No.1 of 2021 dated 20.09.2021 passed by

the 3rd respondent refusing to register the sale deed document executed

by (1) Vadde Venkataramudu and (2) Vadde Sankaramma in favour of

the writ petitioners in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1.70 cents in

Sy.No.782 of Parla Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District on the

ground that Sy.No.782 of Parla Village was included in the list of

prohibited watch register i.e., CCA as per Standing Order No.219(b)

which says that if the High Court of Andhra Pradesh or any other Civil

Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are

brought to the notice of the Registering Officers or received or serviced

on the Registering Officer, the Registering Office shall stop from going

ahead with the Registration and the schedule Sy.No.782 is covered by

court injunction order in CMA No.8 of 2017 on the file of learned VI

Additional District Judge, Kurnool and in I.A.No.2166 of 2016 in

O.S.No.665/2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

2. Petitioners' case is briefly is thus:

(a) One Vadde Venkata Ramudu is absolute owner of the land

admeasuring Ac.1.70 cents in Sy.No.782 of Parla Village, Kallur

Mandal, Kurnool District who obtained the said property by inheritance.

He is in enjoyment of the subject land and the revenue records are

mutated in his name. The owner sold the property in favour of the

petitioners under sale deed dated 06.09.2021. When the same is

presented before the 3rd respondent, he kept the same as pending

registration document No.45/2021 and ultimately passed the refusal

order dated 20.09.2021 on the ground that the subject survey number

782 of Parla Village is covered by court injunction order in I.A.No.2166

of 2016 in O.S.No.665 of 2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Kurnool and in C.M.A.No.8 of 2017 on the file of learned VI

Additional District Judge, Kurnool. On appeal, the 2nd respondent

confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent and dismissed the appeal.

Hence the writ petition.

2. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration

representing respondents.

3. Severely remonstrating the impugned order, learned counsel for

the petitioners would submit that in O.S.No. 665 of 2016 neither the

petitioners nor their vendors are the parties and there is no order

restraining them from entering into a sale transaction respect of the

subject property. The said suit was filed by Gorla Narayana, Vadla

Brahmaiah Achari against Boya Bacchala Chinna Ramudu and Gorla

Narayana for perpetual injunction decree in respect of the property to an

extent of 1.57 cents and Ac.0.50 cents covered by Sy.No.782 of Parla

Village. Learned counsel argued that the full extent of Sy.No.782 of

Parla Village is about Ac.8.27 cents, out of which the suit was filed in

respect of only Ac.2.07 cents. Respondents 5 and 6 without ascertaining

whether the suit property and sale deed property are one and the same,

unjustly came to a conclusion that the sale deed property is covered by

I.A.No.2166 of 2016 in O.S.No.665 of 2016 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, refused registration. The said suit was

between some third parties and it is a suit for permanent injunction

restraining defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. In the said suit in

I.A.No.2166 of 2016 the interim injunction sought for by the plaintiffs

therein was dismissed by learned principal junior civil judge, Kurnool

vide order dated 28.07.2017. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed CMA No.8

of 2017 before learned VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool wherein

the said court allowed the appeal only in respect of Item No.1 of plaint

schedule property while dismissing the appeal in respect of item No.2.

4. Having regard to the above background and as petitioners or their

vendors are not parties to the suit and there is no clarification as to

whether the suit property and sale deed property are one and the same

and the injunction sought for was only to restrain the defendants therein

from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs therein but not

restraining the registering authorities from effecting registration, learned

counsel argued, the impugned orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd

respondents are devoid of legal merit. Thus he prayed to allow the writ

petition.

5. I find substantial force in the argument of learned counsel for the

petitioners. A perusal of the record shows that O.S.No.665 of 2016 was

filed is injunction suit pending on the file of principal junior civil judge,

Kurnool between some third parties and neither the writ petitioners nor

their vendors are the parties in the said suit. Two items of the property

i.e., Ac.1.57 cents and Ac.0.50 cents covered by Sy.No.782 of Parla

Village constitute the said property. As rightly argued by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, there is no material to hold that the sale deed

property and suit property are one and the same except they are covered

by same survey number 782. An injunction order in respect of a

property generally runs with the said property. The injunction sought for

is not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs therein but there

was no express prayer or order therein that the concerned registering

authority is prevented from registering the property. In such

circumstances, in my considered view, it is not trite on the part of the 2nd

and 3rd respondents, particularly the 3rd respondent to refuse the

registration of the sale deed. The law on this aspect is no more res

integra. In G. Narasaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, the division

bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in similar

circumstances observed thus:

"6. Now a word about the powers of Sub-Registrar in respect of a document, relating to a property which has become subject-matter of a suit pending in a Court of law. Proceeding in that direction, we make it clear that if a competent Court of jurisdiction places a restraint on the Sub-Registrar from entertaining or registering the document, it has to be obeyed unless direction is vacated by the Court which has passed the direction or is set aside on a judicial examination by a higher Court but pendency of a suit cannot ipso facto, act as prohibition on the statutory powers of registration of the documents vested in the Sub-Registrar under the Act. Significantly there is no direction in the suit against the registration which would prevent the Sub-Registrar from registering the document."

6. Under identical circumstances, basing on the above judgment in

W.P.No.18797 of 2021 learned single Judge of this Court deprecating the

action of the registering authority to refuse the registration on the ground

that the property was the subject matter of litigation in Civil Court, but

there was no express prohibitory order restraining the registering

authority from registering the property or parties to effect registration,

observed thus:

"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

2011 SCC OnLine AP 85 = (2011) 3 ALD 635 (DB)

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."

7. In that view of the matter, the two impugned orders do not stand to

the legal scrutiny and shall fail. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed

and impugned orders are set aside and 3rd respondent is directed to

receive, register and release the sale deed presented by the petitioners

and their vendors if it is otherwise in order. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 14.03.2022 krk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

WRIT PETITION No. 5539 of 2022

14th March, 2022

krk