Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.S.K.V.Prasada Rao vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 November, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR,J & MRK,J
W.A.No.902/2015
APHC010142182015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3508]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT APPEAL NO: 902/2015
Between:
K.S.K.V.prasada Rao ...APPELLANT
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. D V N ACHARYA
2. A VARALAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA
3. ....
The Court made the following Judgment:
Heard Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing
Smt. A. Varalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri
Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7.
RRR,J & MRK,J
2. The appellant herein claims ownership over Ac.3.16 cents of
agricultural land in RS.No.90/1C of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal,
Krishna District. An extent of Ac.1.58 cents of this land was sold by the 6th
respondent, under a deed of sale, which was registered by the 3rd respondent
as Document No.386 dated 25.02.2014.
3. Aggrieved by the said registration, the appellant had approached
this Court, by way of W.P.No.11889 of 2014, seeking a declaration that the
said deed of sale registered as Document No.386 is invalid and without
jurisdiction and registered by way of misrepresentation by the 7th respondent.
4. The appellant sought the above relief on the following grounds:
a) The land in question originally belonged to his father and upon his
demise it had devolved on the appellant. However, the respondent claimed to
have inherited the property on the basis of a Will, dated 25.10.2004, executed
by the father of the appellant and such a Will is a fabricated and illegal Will.
Apart from this, the father of the appellant could not have executed such a Will
as the property in question is joint family property.
b) The property, which is the subject matter of the deed of sale, was
also the subject matter of O.S.No.159 of 2006, which was a suit for partition,
filed in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Krishna District at
Vijayawada. There was an injunction granted against the alienation of this
RRR,J & MRK,J
property. Despite such an injunction, the 3rd respondent had accepted the
document and registered the same.
c) The property in question fell within the jurisdiction of the Sub-
Registrar, Kankipadu. However, the 6th respondent being aware of the fact
that any registration with the Sub-Registrar, Kankipadu would come to the
attention of the appellant, had got the document registered with the Sub-
Registrar, Movva. For the purpose of creating jurisdiction to the 3rd
respondent-Sub-Registrar Movva, the 6th respondent had included about 100
Sq. yards of house site plot in Nidamanuru Gram Panchayat, which falls within
the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent-Sub-Registrar, Movva. The conduct of
the 6th respondent in registering the document with the 3rd respondent instead
of the proper Sub-Registrar, demonstrates that the 6th respondent was
seeking to commit an illegal act.
d) The 3rd respondent-Sub-Registrar, Movva, had initially placed the
document under the pending registration category and sought information
from the Sub-Registrar Kankipadu. Though the Sub-Registrar, Kankipadu had
informed the 3rd respondent-Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada about the pendency of
O.S.No.159 of 2006 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Krishna
District, at Vijayawada, as well as the interim injunction granted by the Court,
the 3rd respondent-Sub-Registrar ignored the same and registered the deed of
sale. The same is highly irregular and opposed to the circular issued by the
Registrar General of Registration prohibiting registration of any documents
RRR,J & MRK,J
relating to a property on which a Court of competent jurisdiction had issued an
injunction.
e) The appellant also contended that he was the owner of the land
and sought a declaration from this Court that he was the absolute owner,
possessor and enjoyer of the entire extent of Ac.3.16 cents.
5. The 7th respondent, who is the purchaser of the land from the 6th
respondent, has filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, the 7th
respondent contended that the 6th respondent was the owner of Ac.1.58 cents
on account of the registered Will deed, dated 20.10.2004, executed by the
father of the appellant. He would further submit that O.S.No.159 of 2006,
which was being relied upon by the appellant, was actually a suit filed by the
third parties against the father of the appellant and the appellant, for partition
of the property. The interim injunction granted in that suit was against the
father of the appellant and the appellant herein. The 6th respondent was not a
party to this suit and as such the injunction would not bind the 6th respondent.
The 7th respondent also refers to O.S.No.14 of 2012 filed by the 6th
respondent in the Court of XXII Fast Track Court, Vijayawada, for partition of
the property and that the filing of such a suit and the contentions raised by the
appellant, in his written statement in that suit, would not make any difference
for the registration of the deed of sale.
6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. In
this counter affidavit, it was stated that Section 28 of the Act permits any sub-
RRR,J & MRK,J
registrar within whose jurisdiction a part of the property mentioned in the
document is situated. As 100 sq. yards of house site mentioned in the deed of
sale, fell in the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent, there was no irregularity or
illegality in the 3rd respondent registering such a document. The 3rd
respondent further contended that the Standing Order No.219, which prohibits
a registering officer from entertaining documents of registration when there is
an injunction order, is not applicable unless the injunction is granted against
the registering officer also. Further, the injunction granted in O.S.No.159 of
2006 dated 31.01.2012 would operate only against the parties to the suit and
not against any other party. As the 6th respondent was not a party to the suit,
the action of the 3rd respondent in registering the document cannot be faulted.
7. The learned Single Judge, after considering all these issues, had
held that the proper remedy for the appellant would be to move the
appropriate Court under Section 31 as well as Section 34 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963, rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, without expressing any view
on the allegation of misrepresentation etc., pleaded by the appellant, had
dismissed the writ petition leaving it open to the appellant to initiate
appropriate action against the deed of sale before a competent Court.
8. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal of the learned Single Judge,
dated 08.04.2015, the appellant has approached this Court.
RRR,J & MRK,J
9. Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing
Smt. A. Varalakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that
the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant should approach
the competent Civil Court and that the remedy sought by the appellant would
not be granted by this Court. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely
upon the proceedings dated 19.12.2015 issued by the Deputy Inspector
General of Registration and Stamps, Vijayawada, wherein the 3rd respondent-
Sub-Registrar was punished with stoppage of increment for a period of one
year with cumulative effect for having registered the said deed of sale. This
punishment is said to have been awarded on the ground that instructions of
the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, vide
Circular Memo No.G1/9732/2013, dated 17.07.2013 had been violated. This
Circular required the registering authority to verify the Web Adangal Pahani
and ROR-1B records to see whether the details set out therein tallied with the
details set out in the document which is sought to be registered. The finding of
the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps was that the records
contain the name of the father of the appellant, whereas the document was
executed by the 6th respondent and the same is not in accordance with the
circular. The Deputy Inspector General also took the view that Standing Order
219 B requires every registering authority to stall registration of properties
which are covered by a Court Order.
RRR,J & MRK,J
10. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the view of the
learned Single Judge that such cases could be moved only before a Civil
Court and not before the High Court under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India has now been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs.
S.P. Velayutham and Ors., 1 . Learned Senior Counsel relying upon this
judgment would contend that the registration of a document can be set aside,
by approaching the constitutional courts under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
11. Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 6 and 7 would contend that the said judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court does not set out a strait jacket formula that the High Court can
be approached in all cases of challenge to the registration of a document.
Learned counsel would submit that registration of documents can be
challenged only on the narrow ground of irregularity in registration and that
such a challenge would not be maintainable before the High Court if any other
issue is raised. On the question of whether Standing Order 219 and the
Circular had been violated, the learned counsel would submit that a learned
Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court Judicature at Hyderabad for the
State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Sangaraju
Laxminarayana Raju vs. Principal Secretary Revenue (Registration)
(2022) 8 SCC 210
RRR,J & MRK,J
Department, Guntur District and Ors., 2 had held that the registration
authority cannot refuse to register a document, merely on the ground that an
injunction had been issued against alienation of such property, unless the
person presenting the document is also a party to the suit. Learned counsel
would submit that since the 6th respondent was not a party to O.S.No.159 of
2006, the 3rd respondent could not have refused registration.
Consideration of the Court:
12. The primary issue before this Court is whether the observation of
the learned Single Judge that such cases should go before the competent
Court of civil jurisdiction, requires to be overruled on account of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India)
Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and Ors.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company
(India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and Ors., while considering the
question of whether registration of a document can be challenged under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, had held as follows:
53. Actually, the registration of a document comprises of three
essential steps among others. They are:
(i) execution of the document, by the executant signing or
affixing his left hand thumb impression;
(ii) presenting the document for registration and admitting to
the registering authority the execution of such document; and
2018 (6) ALD 413
RRR,J & MRK,J
(iii) the act of registration of the document.
54. In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or without the relief of
declaration that the registered document is null and void, what gets
challenged, is a combination of all the aforesaid three steps in the
process of execution and registration. The first of the aforesaid three
steps may be challenged in a suit for declaration that the registered
document is null and void, either on the ground that the executant
did not have a valid title to pass on or on the ground that what was
found in the document was not the signature of the executant or on
the ground that the signature of the executant was obtained by
fraud, coercion, etc. The second step of presentation of the
document and admitting the execution of the same, may also be
challenged on the very same grounds hereinabove stated. Such
objections to the first and second of the aforesaid three steps are
substantial and they strike at the very root of creation of the
document. A challenge to the very execution of a document, is a
challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on the
execution, is congenital in nature. Therefore, such a challenge, by
its very nature, has to be made only before the civil court and
certainly not before the writ court.
56. Thus, the first two steps in the process of registration are
substantial in nature, with the parties to the document playing the
role of the lead actors and the registering authority playing a guest
role in the second step. The third step is procedural in nature where
the registering authority is the lead actor.
57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for declaration that a
registered document is null and void, all the aforesaid three steps
which comprise the entire process of execution and registration
come under challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a
document or the right and title of a person to execute a document
and present it for registration, his remedy will only be to go to the
civil court. But where a party questions only the failure of the
registering authority to perform his statutory duties in the course of
the third step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court
RRR,J & MRK,J
under Article 226 stands completely ousted. This is for the reason
that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure that statutory
authorities perform their duties within the bounds of law.
58. It must be noted that when a High Court, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 finds that there was utter failure on the
part of the registering authority to stick to the mandate of law, the
Court merely cancels the act of registration, but does not declare the
very execution of the document to be null and void. A declaration
that a document is null and void, is exclusively within the domain of
the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot
examine the question whether or not the registering authority
performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law.
59. It is well settled that if something is required by law to be done in
a particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and not
otherwise. Examining whether the registering authority did
something in the manner required by law or otherwise, is certainly
within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. However,
it is needless to say that the High Courts may refuse to exercise
jurisdiction in cases where the violations of procedure on the part of
the registering authority are not gross or the violations do not shock
the conscience of the Court. Lack of jurisdiction is completely
different from a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
60. In the case on hand, the appellant has not sought a
declaration from the High Court that the execution of the
document in question was null and void or that there was no
title for the executant to transfer the property. The appellant
assailed before the High Court, only the act of omission on the
part of the registering authority to check up whether the person
who claimed to be the power agent, had the power of
conveyance and the power of presenting the document for
registration, especially in the light of the statutory rules.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly applied the law and
allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant, but the Division
RRR,J & MRK,J
Bench got carried away by the sound and fury created by the
contesting respondents on the basis of:
(i) pendency of the civil suits;
(ii) findings recorded by the Special Court for CBI cases; and
(iii) the order passed by this Court in the SLP arising out of
proceedings under Section 145CrPC.
14. It would now have to be seen whether the registration of the
document was challenged only on the ground of irregular presentation of
documents and on the ground of irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The prayer
in the writ petition is as follows:
"......... calling for records relating to Registered Sale deed
bearing No.386, dated 25.02.2014 in office of the Sub-Registrar,
Movva and declare the same so far as it relates to R.S.No.90/1C an
extent of Ac.01.58 cents of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal as
invalid without jurisdiction, and got registered by misrepresentation as
owner of R.S.No.90/1C an extent of Ac.1.58 cents of land, whereas
the petitioner is absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the entire
extent of Ac.3.16 cents in Rs.No.90/1C of Poranki Village and it is
also covered under Civil Court's Order in O.S.No.59/2006, dated
31.01.2012 restraining alienation of the above land."
15. This prayer calls upon this Court to declare -
1. The deed of sale registered as document No.386 dated 25.02.2014
is invalid, without jurisdiction and was registered by
misrepresentation;
RRR,J & MRK,J
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the
entire extent of Ac.3.16 cents, and out of which Ac.1.58 cents was
sought to be sold under the impugned deed of sale.
16. The contention raised by the appellant, in the writ petition, was
that the claim of the 6th respondent over the property, by virtue of the Will said
to have been executed by the father of the appellant, is invalid in as much as
such a Will could not have been executed by his father. Further, the property
could not have been sold as it is the subject matter of O.S.No.14 of 2012 filed
by the 6th respondent against the appellant and others for partition of the
property and no sale could have been done without division of the property by
metes and bounds. The appellant also contended that the 6th respondent had
made a false statement and had played fraud on the Sub-Registrar for
obtaining the registration of deed of sale and as such the deed of sale would
have to be set aside.
17. The prayer mentioned above and the pleadings of the appellant,
in the writ petition, make it clear that the appellant was challenging the
registration of the deed of sale not only on the ground of irregular presentation
but also on the merits of the title of the 6th respondent.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the passages extracted above,
had held that a writ petition would be maintainable only where there is failure
on the part of the registering authority to stick to the mandate of law and mere
RRR,J & MRK,J
cancellation of registration of the document is sought. Further a declaration
that the document is null and void is exclusively within the domain of the civil
Court. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that this would not
restrict the High Court from examining the question of whether the registering
authority had performed his duties, it was also held that it would be open to
the High Court to refuse to exercise jurisdiction in such cases. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after specifically observing that the appellant in that case had
not sought a declaration that the document is null and void, had held that such
a challenge is maintainable. In the present case, the appellant had sought a
declaration that the deed of sale is null and void. The appellant also sought
recognition that he was the absolute owner and possessor of the land.
19. In such circumstances, the observations of the learned Single
Judge cannot be faulted and the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, on the peculiar facts of this case, would not aid the appellant.
20. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, had
vehemently contended that once an injunction order has been issued in
relation to a property, there can be no registration of any deed of alienation
relating to that property. He contends that the registering authority would have
to only verify whether the property in question is covered by the injunction
order or not. This Court is unable to accept this contention. As rightly
observed by the learned Single Judge in Sangaraju Laxminarayana Raju vs.
Principal Secretary Revenue (Registration) Department, Guntur District
RRR,J & MRK,J
and Ors., the registering authority cannot refuse registration, merely on
account of an injunction order being passed in relation to the subject land,
unless the parties to the document are also parties to the suit where such an
interim injunction had been granted.
21. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in this writ appeal.
Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. It is clarified that this Court is not
pronouncing on merits of the case and it would be open to the parties to
agitate their respective contentions before the appropriate Court. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
__________________________________
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
Js.
RRR,J & MRK,J
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
15th November, 2024
Js.
