Dismissed

Smt. Tadikonda Ramadevi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Nov 2020WP/17279/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandatory injunction to stop a Sub-Registrar from registering a sale deed. The court held that the Registering Authority functions administratively under the Registration Act and lacks the power to adjudicate title disputes or third-party objections, which are matters for the civil courts.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition and awarded costs of Rs. 5,000 to the A.P. Legal Services Authority.

Smt. Tadikonda Ramadevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17279 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in registering sale deed or any kind of conveyance deed presented by the 5^th respondent in respect of half (1/2) share to an extent of 83.1 Sq.yds out of 166.2 Sq.Yds including half (1/2) share in Madras Terras Building with Assessment No. 62415 in Door No. 11-49-273, situated at Pulipativari Street, Near Kaleswara Rao Market, Vijayawada City, Krishna District of the petitioner acquired under Registered Will Deed bearing Document No. 135/III/19, dated 04.05.2019, basing on Registered agreement of sale without possession-cum- General Power of Attorney bearing document No.14304 of 2006, dated 15.11.2006 suppressing death of one of the executor thereof, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The Case of the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner was held on 07.08.1997 with Tadikonda Srinivasa Madan Kishore, as Second wife after demise of his first wife Tadikonda Usha Rani on 05.09.1991. The said Tadikonda Srinivasa Madan Kishore had a son and daughter namely Tadikonda Ajay Prakash and Tadikonda Sarasija Rani through his first wife, whose marriage was performed by said Tadikonda Srinivasa Madan Kishore. Petitioner is issueless. The petitioner spent matrimonial life with her husband happily and she used to take care of his health till his death on 27.05.2019.

¶6

¶7

The husband of the petitioner and his brother Tadikonda Ramkishore were the partners of M/s Tadikonda Ramulu Firm, Guntur and they purchased immovable property with the money of the said firm to an extent of 166.2 sq.yds with Madras Terras Building with Assessment No. 62415 and D.No. 11-49-273, situated at Pulipativari Street, Kaleswara Rao Market, Vijayawada under various sale deeds and the same was mortgaged for obtaining loan from Corporation Bank, Guntur Branch as single unit and they failed to discharge the said loan as their firm is not doing business, they have executed an agreement of Sale without possession cum General Power of Attorney on 15.11.2006 in favour of one Kantamneni Siva Rama Krishna Prasad/ 5^th Respondent in respect of above subject property with certain terms and conditions for consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- and received Rs. 10,00,000/as advance and agreeing to receive the balance of sale consideration is Rs. 15,00,000/- shall be paid at the time of registration of sale deed in his favour. The 5^th respondent did not fulfill the conditions of the said Agreement of Sale dated 15.11.2006 so far and the said property was in possession and enjoyment of the husband of the petitioner and his brother with equal shares.

¶8

During the life time of husband of the petitioner he acquired various movable and immovable properties including the subject property. The husband of the petitioner had executed a Registered Will Deed in favour of petitioner bequeathing his all movable and immovable properties including half share of the above subject property covered under Agreement of Sale dt. 15.11.2006 and her husband expired subsequently on 27.05.2019 and the said Will

¶9

¶10

came into operation and petitioner acquired rights over the properties. On 16.09.2020 the petitioner came to know that 5^th respondent has been making illegal efforts to sell the subject property covered under Agreement of Sale Deed dt. 15.11.2006 along with half share of the petitioner to an extent of 83.1 sq.yds in the above subject property with the connivance of 4^th Respondent/ Sub Registrar. Thereby the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 17.09.2020 to the 4^th respondent by enclosing Death Certificate dated 10.06.2019 relating to the husband of the petitioner, but the subordinates of 4^th respondent refused to issue receipt. Assailing the inaction of the 4^th respondent this present Writ Petition is filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a duty is cast on the registering authority to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration by considering any written or verbal protest against the registration of such a documents if the executing party had no right to execute the document and every document shall, before acceptance for the registration examined by the registering officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and Rules have been complied with.

¶12

A plain reading of the provisions of the Registration Act and the A.P. Rules made thereunder makes it clear that none of the provisions of the Registration Act authorize the Registering Officer to consider the objections of the third parties to the document and make a roving enquiry into the title and refuse the registration of a document on the objection raised by a person, who is a third party to the document, on the ground that the party who executed the document and sought to register it, has no title to the property.

¶13

¶14

However, the Registering Officer is bound to follow the procedure enumerated in Rule 58(a) to (e) of the A.P. Rules. In fact, the petitioner, by asking the Registering Authority not to register the document to be presented for registration on the ground that he is the absolute owner of the property covered thereby, was seeking to raise a title dispute, which the Registering Authority, under the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder, is not entitled to go into. If the petitioner intends to dispute the document to be presented for registration and the contents thereof, he has to avail the common law remedy, but he cannot ask the Registering Authority nor the Registering Authority has any right or power under the Registration Act to determine dispute relating to title to the property. The Registering Authority is required to discharge his statutory duties within the powers conferred on him under the statute and not otherwise. If any person is aggrieved by registration of a document, it is open to such person to avail remedies under the provisions of the Registration Act and other remedies under common law by approaching competent civil court.

¶15

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ petition is misconceived and the counsel for the petitioner could not persuade this court with reference to the provisions of law, which obligates the Registering Authority to consider any objections raised by the third party to the document and the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner putting an embargo on the Sub-Registrar to consider the complaint dated 17.09.2020 submitted to the 4^th respondent before registering any document pertaining to the petitioner’s property.

¶16

¶17

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable to the A.P. Legal Services Authority, Amaravati, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶19

__________________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

Date: 10.11.2020

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.17279 OF 2020

¶25

Date: 10.11.2020

¶26

Smt. Tadikonda Ramadevi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tadikonda Ramadevi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chintamani Peta Subba Narasimha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G Padmavathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarralagadda Siva Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanithi Venkata Seshagiri, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

C.M.Veeresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Linga Reddy Ramasubba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh