Mrs. Farha Shams vs Y. Ramalakshmi
2023 Latest Caselaw 2474 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2474 Tel
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2023

Telangana High Court

Mrs. Farha Shams vs Y. Ramalakshmi on 19 September, 2023

Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                  WRIT APPEAL No.913 OF 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

       Mr. Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the

appellants.

       Mr. S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

3. This intra court appeal has been filed against the order

16.06.2023 in W.P.No.18097 of 2017 passed by a learned Single

Judge of this Court by which the writ petition preferred by the

respondent No.1 has been allowed.

4. The parties in this appeal shall be referred to as their

rankings before the learned Single Judge.

5. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have executed a development

agreement-cum-general power of attorney dated 05.03.2009 in

favour of the petitioner in respect of land in various survey

numbers situated in Motighanpur Village and Gram Panchayat,

Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. Respondent Nos.3

to 6 have cancelled the aforesaid power of attorney by executing a ::2::

cancellation deed on 28.05.2014 on the ground that the petitioner

had failed to discharge her obligations under the development

agreement. The petitioner challenged the action of the Joint

Sub-Registrar in registration of cancellation deed dated 28.05.2014

in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the

aforesaid writ petition. In the aforesaid background, this appeal

has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

cancellation deed was executed and registered on 28.05.2014,

whereas Rule 26(k) of the Telangana Rules under the Registration

Act were amended on 02.06.2014. It is further submitted that the

learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there are civil

disputes between the parties and, therefore, ought to have relegated

the writ petitioner to the remedy of civil suit.

7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for

the appellants and perused the record.

8. The unamended Rule 26(i)(k)(i), prior to its amendment on

02.06.2014, reads as under:

"26. (i) Every document shall, before acceptance for registration, be examined by the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act ::3::

and in these rules have been complied with, for instance:

xxxxx xxxxx

(k)(i) The registrating officer shall ensure at the time of presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale".

9. Even after the amendment by way of G.O.Ms.No.121

(Revenue for Registration-I Department) dated 01.06.2016 w.e.f.,

02.06.2014, the Rule reads as under:

"26. (i) Every document shall, before acceptance for registration examined by the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and in these rules have been complied with, for instance:

xxxxx xxxxx

(k) That the Cancellation Deed of the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale of immovable property is executed by both the executing and the claiming parties thereof unless such Cancellation Deed is executed under the orders of a competent Court or under Rule 243."