Telangana High Court
Smt. M. Suchitra Tummalacherla ... vs Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi on 8 December, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
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
