Telangana High Court
Shams Khatoon, vs The State Of Telangana, on 14 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.3766 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the
respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the
stage of admission.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
"to declaring the proceedings No.E2/3363/2023, dated
22.01.2024 of the 3rd respondent in rejecting to delete from the
prohibitory list of the 1st petitioner lands in Sy Nos 93/A/1/2 an
extent of Ac.8.07 guntas in Sy No.95/A/1/1 an extent of Ac.2.24
guntas the 2nd petitioner land in Sy No 94/A an extent of Ac 4 32
guntas Sy No 95/AA/2 an extent of Ac.4.22 guntas, 3rd
petitioner land in Sy No.95/A/2 an extent of Ac 1.00 guntas and
the 4th petitioner the land in Sy No.91 an extent of Ac.2.00
guntas total an extent of Ac 23.05 guntas situated at Mokila
Village Shankarpalli Mandal Ranga Reddy District is illegal
arbitrary contrary to the provisions of the Stamps and
Registration Act blatant violation of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India and as well as
violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of India set aside the same consequently direct the
5th and 6th respondent to receive and register the sale deeds in
respect of the above said petitioners property"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.4 is the
absolute owner and possessor of the subject property and intends to sell the
subject property accordingly petitioners approach Registering Authority to
execute the same, however respondent Authority is refusing to register the
said subject document stating that the subject documents are notified in the
prohibited properties Under Section 22-A of the Stamps and Registration Act,
1908, vide Court Stay in IA No.273 of 2023 in OS No.294 of 2023. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has categorically stated that the petitioners
herein, the land owner or his predecessor-in-title, are not parties to IA
No.273 of 2023 in OS No.294 of 2023 pending on the file of VIII Additional
District & Session, Judge, Ranga Reddy, at L.B. Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court
to a judgment of this Court in the case of Kagitala Venkata
Chalapathi Rao & others v. Sabarunnisa Begum & others 1 and
the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
"17. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised a specific contention that
no interim order can be granted against the person, who is not a party to the suit,
placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in P.M. Aboobucker v.
K.Kunhamoo and Others (3rd supra), wherein the Madras High Court held as
follows:
"......However, if I may say so with respect, I find myself in complete
agreement with the principle that underlies the second sentence in the
passage I have extracted above, that an interim relief granted during the
pendency of a suit should not be of greater scope than what could be
granted in the suit itself, after the party has established his right in the
2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 626
suit to that relief. In my opinion, that would be a very relevant factor to
be taken into account in deciding whether a Court should or even could
grant such an interim relief, especially so when the person against whom
the interim injunction is sought is not a party to the suit, and against
whom no relief could be granted in the suit itself."
20. Thus, the person who is a party to the suit alone is entitled to claim
injunction or similarly injunction can be granted against the party to the suit,
but not against the third party who is not on record.
21. In Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. and Ors. V. Pramila Sanfui
and Ors.8 the Apex Court held that It is a well settled principle of law that
either temporary or permanent injunction can be granted only against the
parties to a suit. Further the purported consent order in terms of Order XXXIX
of the Code of Civil Procedure is only binding as against the parties to the
suit.
On close analysis of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of CPC, it is clear that
interim order can be granted only when defendant threatens to damage,
alienate, sale, remove or dispossess the plaintiff from the property, or
otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute
in the suit. An injunction can be granted when the property in dispute in a
suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the
suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree. So the language used in the
provision is clear that when the property is likely to be alienated or
attempted to be alienated by any party to the suit, an interim injunction can
be granted."
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration on
instructions stated that petitioners have not approach the Registering
Authority to register their documents, and if the petitioners presents the
subject documents for registration, the Registering Authority will follow the
procedure contemplated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for
short, 'the Act, 1908').
Section 71 of the Act reads as follows:
Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded.--
(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document,
except on the ground that the property to which it
relates is not situated within his sub-district, shall make
an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order
in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words "registration
refused" on the document; and, on application made by
any person executing or claiming under the document,
shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him
a copy of the reasons so recorded.
(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a
document so endorsed unless and until, under the
provisions hereinafter contained, the document is
directed to be registered."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly acceded the same.
7. Recording the above submission made by learned counsel on either
side and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ
petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to receive,
register and release the subject documents, subject to the petitioners
complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and
Indian Stamps Act, 1899, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It
is also open to the Registering Authority to refuse to register the
documents, by specifically assign the reasons in terms of Section 71 of the
Act, 1908 and communicate the said decision to the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 14.02.2024.
SHA
