Allowed

Bachu Venkata Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2021WP/74/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a Madras High Court injunction does not apply in Andhra Pradesh. Directing the registration authority to register the settlement deed and release the documents within four weeks, subject to the Registration and Stamp Acts.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd Respondent is directed to register the settlement deed and release the documents within four weeks.

Bachu Venkata Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.74 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in refusing to register the settlement deed dated 31.07.2020 vide document P.No.131 of 2020 presented by the petitioner and the consequential orders dated 21.12.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent by dismissing the Appeal No.35 of 2020 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to register the settlement deed sought to be registered by the petitioner in respect of the building property as mentioned in the settlement deed without reference to the memo dated 01.12.2011 of the 1^st respondent.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that himself and his brother Bachu Venkata Guru Shekar @ Venkata Shekar jointly purchased the property, an extent of 94 Square Yards including the house in Sy.No.471/2 & 472 vide sale deed dated 04.07.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner’s brother intended to relinquish his share in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, a settlement deed, dated 31.07.2020 was executed by the petitioner’s brother in favour of the petitioner and the same was presented before the 3^rd respondent for registration, which was assigned pending document P.No.131 of 2020. Thereafter, by intimation of refusal, dated 31.07.2020, the 3^rd respondent declined to register the settlement deed stating that an injunction order dated 15.03.2011 passed by the Madras High Court in contempt Petition No.1205 of 2010, wherein the subject property was involved, was communicated through the Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad vide Memo No.G2/19134/2011 dated 01.11.2011 with District Registrar, Ongole endorsement No.G1/1382/2011 dated 19.12.2011 as the property

¶6

¶7

belongs Christian Missionaries. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed an Appeal No.35 of 2020 before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent by orders dated 21.12.2020 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the 3^rd respondent. Assailing the said orders, the present writ petition is filed.

¶8

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P.No. 10721 of 2016 dated 01.04.2016 and requested to pass similar order in this Writ Petition.

¶9

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has acceded for the same.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of both the counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that in similar set of circumstances, a learned Single Judge of combined High Court of A.P, passed an order in W.P.No.10721 of 2016 dated 01.04.2016, wherein it is held that the injunction order said to have been granted by the Madras High Court in a Contempt Petition No.1205 of 2010 would not operate in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that the order cannot be treated as an order passed by the Court having competent jurisdiction and directed the registration authorities to register and release the sale document. Therefore, in the interest of justice this Court felt it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the 3^rd respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and release the same, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

¶12

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There

¶13

shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also

¶15

stand closed.

¶16

_______________________ JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶17

05.01.2021 Note: Issue CC by 12.01.2021 B/o Vjl

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.74 OF 2021

¶21

05.01.2021

¶22

Vjl

Bachu Venkata Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachu Venkata Ramesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Nagaraja Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Pasupuleti Ananda Vidya Sagar Vs State of Ap

Smt a Anasuya Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Yelala Narasimha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri.Gandla Siddappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 others

Amigo Life Sciences Private Limited Vs the State of Ap