Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Atchuta Rama Kotaiah vs The State Of Ap on 21 October, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010443932024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 850/2024
Between:
Atchuta Rama Kotaiah ...APPELLANT
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. B VAMSI KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. AMBATI SRINIVASA REDDY
3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
One Sri A. Adinarayana had entered into an agreement of sale
deed dated 23.10.2006 for purchase of Ac.2.00 cents of land in Sy.Nos.89 &
90 of Yerragondapalem Village and Mandal, Prakasam District from Sri V.V.
Subbaiah. Sri A. Adinarayana then filed O.S.No.22 of 2008 before the VII
Additional District Judge at Ongole for specific performance of said agreement
of sale. Initially, the Trial Court had granted a temporary injunction restraining
the defendants therein from alienating the property. Subsequently, the suit
was decreed exparte on 23.09.2010. This exparte decree was again set aside
2
on 04.03.2021, after legal representatives of Sri V.V. Subbaiah were brought
on record.
2. However, a dispute arose as to whether the earlier interim
injunction would continue or not. This dispute came up before this Court by
way W.P.No.24226 of 2021. A Learned Single Judge of this Court by an Order
dated 09.02.2022, after reviewing the law on this issue, had held that the
Order of injunction passed earlier available to the plaintiff/Sri A. Adinarayana
should continue. A consequential direction to the registration authorities was
also issued directing the said authorities not to registration any sale deeds
with regard to the property covered by the suit till a final decision has taken in
O.S.No.22 of 2008 by the Trial Court.
3. It appears that on the basis of this direction, the registration
authorities had placed the property in the prohibitory list maintained under
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, by proceedings dated 05.11.2021.
4. Thereafter, the matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India and related proceedings also were initiated. These details may
not be relevant for the purposes of the present Writ Appeal and are not been
adverted to.
5. It would be sufficient to state that Sri A. Adinarayana had passed
away during the pendency of these proceedings and his mother was arrayed
as plaintiff No.2 and the wife and children of Late Sri A. Adinarayana were
impleaded as the plaintiffs 3 to 5.
3
6. The wife of Late Sri A. Adinarayan, on her behalf and behalf of
her children had withdrawn the suit. On the basis of this application made by
wife and children of Late Sri A. Adinarayana, the suit was dismissed on
16.02.2023.
7. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the legal heirs of
Sri V.V. Subbaiah had executed registered deeds of sale in favour of the
respondents 6 to 8. After the dismissal of the suit, the applications were
moved for deleting these subject lands from the prohibitory registered. As the
authorities under the Registration Act, 1908, were not taking any steps, the
respondents 6 to 8, who are the pendente lite purchasers of the land and the
9th respondent, who is the wife of late Sri A. Adinarayana had moved this
Court by way of W.P.No.20568 of 2024, for a direction to the authorities to
remove the lands from the prohibitory list. This Writ Petition was based on the
ground that the Orders of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24226 of 2021
required the land to be kept in the prohibitory list only till the disposal of the
suit and continuous of the property in the prohibitory list after the suit had
been closed was not permissible. A Learned Single Judge of this Court had
disposed of the Writ Petition by an Order dated 18.09.2024 directing the
authorities to delete the property from the prohibitory list as the suit had been
closed.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein had filed the
present Writ Appeal after seeking leave of this Court.
4
9. Sri B. Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that the appellant is that the mother of Sri A. Adinarayana, was also
arrayed as the 2nd plaintiff in the main suit in as much as she was entitle to
1/4th share in the estate of Sri A. Adinarayana. Subsequently, she passed
away leaving behind two sons and three daughters (Including predeceased Sri
A. Adinarayana) as her legal heirs and that the suit was withdrawn by the 9th
respondent herein, without notice to the mother of Sri A. Adinarayana or the
subsequent legal heirs. The appellant contends that an application has
already been moved by his mother for restoration of the suit. This
representation/application was treated as I.A.No.--- of 2023 filed vide
CFR.No.452 of 2023 and the Trial Court by an Order 23.02.2023 restored the
suit to file and notices were directed to be issued to the plaintiffs 3 to 5 and
defendants.
10. The appellants contend that the respondents had approached this
Court without placing these facts before the Learned Single Judge and as
such, the Orders of the Learned Single Judge require to be set aside as the
suit has now been restored.
11. Sri P. Rajsekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri
Ambati Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 9 would
contend that there were unaware of restoration of the suit and had
approached this Court. He would submit that there was no suppression by the
private respondents in any manner.
5
12. Without going into the question of whether there was suppression
or not, the fact remains that the Learned Single Judge had directed deletion of
the property from the prohibitory list on the ground that the suit had been
closed. As the suit has now been restored, the property would have to
continue in the prohibitory list by virtue of the directions of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.24226 of 2021 dated 09.02.2022.
13. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of setting aside
the Impugned Order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20568 of 2024
dated 18.09.2024, leaving it open to the respective parties to sought out their
rights and claims before the Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
________________
HARINATH.N, J.
BSM
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
W.A.No.850 OF 2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Date: 21.10.2024
BSM
