Dismissed

T Narasimhulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2021WP/1585/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a refusal to register a sale deed. It held that an appeal lies under Section 72 of the Registration Act and directed the District Registrar to entertain the appeal without considering delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to prefer appeal under Section 72 of Registration Act, 1908 before District Registrar.

T Narasimhulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

W.P. No. 1585 of 2021

¶3

O R D E R :-

¶4

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of Intimation of Refusal dated 24.11.2020 passed by the 4^th respondent.

¶5

The impugned order, dated 24.11.2020 reads thus:

¶6

“It is hereby informed that this document purporting to be a sale deed executed by Sri T.Narasimhulu in favour of Sri N.Govindamma Plot No.1 an extent of 600 Sq. Yds. In Sy.No.34/1D of Daminedu Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District of Rs.43,20,000/-. The said document has been kept pending for scrutiny and assigned pending document number P838 of 2020.

¶7

This document is one of the series of sale deeds presented before the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta in various dates stating that an extent of land of Ac.1.00 cents of Sy.No.34/1D of Daminedu village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor stands in the name of M.Narasimhulu (executant) vide Khatha No.538 of Revenue records. But on verification of the revenue records i.e. 1(B) and Adangal in web-land the same was in the name of R.Govardhanamma with Khata No.501.

¶8

In the light of the Circular Memo No.G3/12238/2014, dated 07.09.2015 and Circular Memo No.G1/1249/2012, dated 25.06.2016 of Director and Inspector General, A.P., R&S, Hyderabad the executant name should be matched with web-land data.”

¶9

For the reasons assigned in the impugned order, registration of document No.P838/2020 was refused by the 4^th respondent under the provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. However, against the impugned order,

¶10

2 MGR,J

¶11

WP_1585_2021

¶12

an appeal lies to the District Registrar as per the provisions of Section 72 of the Registration Act.

¶13

In view of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the District Registrar as per Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 against the impugned order, and on such appeal being preferred, the 3^rd respondent - District Registrar is directed to consider the same on its own merits without reference to any delay in submitting the appeal. No order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

________________ M. GANGA RAO, J

¶16

02.03.2021 bcj

T Narasimhulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Narasimhulu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Venkatesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Natti Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandi Prabhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Devarajulu Vs The Priciple Secretary

Kagitha Vijetha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Suresh Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh