Mohammed Fasiuddin Khan vs Kandadi Jagneevan Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 5001 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                 W.A.No. 356 of 2022 and W.P.No.8713 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the

appellant; Mr. Tarun G.Reddy, learned counsel for respondents

Nos.1 to 3; and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.4

to 6.

2. Writ Appeal No.356 of 2022 is directed against the order

dated 17.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of

W.P.No.8713 of 2022 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 as the writ

petitioners.

3. It may be mentioned that appellant was not arrayed as a

respondent in the related writ petition. Being aggrieved by the

aforesaid order, he has filed the related appeal along with an

application for leave being I.A.No.1 of 2022. On 07.06.2022, this

Court allowed the said IA by granting leave to the appellant to file

the related appeal.

::2::

4. Additionally, appellant had filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 for

condoning the delay of 27 days in filing the related appeal. By the

aforesaid order dated 07.06.2022, delay has been condoned.

5. Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench has stayed operation of the

impugned order dated 17.02.2022 and posted the matter today for

consideration.

6. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 as the writ petitioners had filed

W.P.No.8713 of 2022 with the grievance that Sub-Registrar,

Azampura, Hyderabad District was not registering the gift

settlement deed in respect of land admeasuring 1850 Sq. Yards in

Survey No.103/20/1 situated at Bandlaguda Khalsa Village,

Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District (briefly 'subject property'

hereinafter) and further sought for a direction to the said Sub-

Registrar to receive, process, register and release the said document.

7. By order dated 17.02.2022, learned Single Judge disposed of

W.P.No.8713 of 2022 by directing the Sub-Registrar (respondent

No.2 in the writ petition) to accept the document presented by ::3::

respondent Nos.1 to 3 for registration. However, it was clarified

that if for any reason the document cannot be registered, then

reasons would have to be recorded under Section 71 of the

Registration Act, 1908 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) and

communicated to respondents No.1 to 3.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was

a necessary party to the writ proceeding inasmuch as the sale deed

on the basis of which the gift settlement deed was made, was put to

challenge by the appellant in O.S.No.452 of 2022 before the

VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. It was

contended therein that the earlier judgment and decree

dated 01.07.2015 in O.S.No.1282 of 2014 on the basis of which the

sale deed was made, was obtained by respondent Nos.1 to 3

fraudulently and in a collusive manner. In I.A.No.252 of 2022 filed

by the appellant in O.S.No.452 of 2022, an order of status quo was

passed by the civil court clarifying that the subject property should

not be alienated. In O.S.No.452 of 2022, respondent Nos.1 to 3

were arrayed as defendants. Therefore, they were fully aware of the ::4::

proceedings before the civil court. Notwithstanding the same, this

fact was suppressed in the writ affidavit whereafter the impugned

order was obtained by respondent Nos.1 to 3.

9. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that

subsequently O.S.No.452 of 2022 has been dismissed

on 22.09.2022 on an application filed by the defendants

(respondent Nos.1 to 3) under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). According to him, the basic issue

before the learned Single Judge was whether the Sub-Registrar has

complied with the requirement of Section 71 of the Act as per

which the Sub-Registrar is under a mandate to record reasons if he

denies registration of the document presented before him.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the materials on record including the writ affidavit filed by

respondent Nos.1 to 3.

11. Paragraph 3 of the writ affidavit reads as under:

"It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners herein are the lawful owners and possessors of entire ::5::

piece of land admeasuring 1850 square yards in survey No.103/20/1, Bandlaguda Khalsa Village, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property) having acquired the same through a sale deed bearing No.7533 of 2015 executed by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in furtherance of the orders passed in O.S.No.1282 of 2014 on behalf of the defendants therein. The said sale deed was executed for a larger piece of land, totally admeasuring Ac.42.30 guntas in survey Nos.103/1, 103/11, 103/12 and 103/20/1 of Bandlaguda Khalsa Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District, and the land admeasuring 1850 square yards is a part of the said land. A copy of the sale deed bearing No.7533 of 2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1".

12. Thus, respondents No.1 to 3 stated that sale deed was

executed on the strength of the judgment and decree

dated 01.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.1282 of 2014.

13. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 3 stated that for better

utilization of the property, they had decided to execute a gift

settlement deed in favour of Ahmed Memorial Educational Society.

::6::

It is this gift settlement deed which was not being registered by the

Sub-Registrar.

14. While respondent Nos.1 to 3 had stated in the writ affidavit

(para 3) about the judgment and decree obtained in O.S.No.1282

of 2014, yet they did not mention about O.S.No.452 of 2022 filed

by the appellant to set-aside the judgment and decree

dated 01.07.2015 obtained in O.S.No.1282 of 2014. Respondent

Nos1 to 3 also did not mention about the status quo order passed by

the civil court in I.A.No.252 of 2022 in O.S.No.452 of 2022 despite

being parties to the civil suit.

15. In our view, the fact that civil suit was pending with a status

quo order on the date of filing of the writ petition is a material fact

and should have been disclosed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the

writ affidavit. Non-disclosure or suppression of material facts by a

litigant amounts to approaching the court with unclean hands;

rather a fraud on the court. The law on this point is well settled.

Supreme Court as well as the High Courts have time and again

made it abundantly clear that a litigant who approaches the court ::7::

with unclean hands is not entitled to any consideration at the hands

of the writ court, not to speak of granting of any relief.

16. In the hearing today, learned counsel for respondents No.1

to 3 made a submission that order of the learned Single Judge may

be set aside and the matter remanded back to the learned Single

Judge for fresh consideration.

17. We are afraid we cannot accept such contention of learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Admittedly, respondent Nos.1

to 3 had suppressed material facts while filing the writ petition. The

position would not be improved on remand. For suppression of

material facts, not only the order of the learned Single Judge

dated 17.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.8713 of 2022 stands vitiated,

even the filing of the writ petition stands vitiated. Therefore,

question of remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge does

not arise.

::8::

18. Consequently, we set aside the order of the learned Single

Judge dated 17.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.8713 of 2022 and dismiss

W.P.No.8713 of 2022.

19. Since respondent Nos.1 to 3 had suppressed material facts

before the Court and thereby had mislead the Court, we impose

cost of Rs.50,000/- on each of the three respondents i.e.,

respondents No.1 to 3. The cost has to be paid by respondents

No.1 to 3 within a period of thirty days from today to the

Telangana State Legal Services Authority.

20. W.A.No.356 of 2022 is allowed and W.P.No.8713 of 2022 is

accordingly dismissed with costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

dismissed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 11.10.2022 LUR/BB