Allowed

Ravi Kumar Mulukuri v. The State of A.P

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Nov 2022WP/36494/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the injunction order in a pending partition suit does not bar registration of a sale deed for property not listed in the prohibited schedule. The Court directed the respondent to receive and process the document for registration under the Stamps and Registration Act, 1908.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent is directed to receive and process the Sale Deed for registration provided the property is not listed in the prohibited properties.

Ravi Kumar Mulukuri Vs The State of A.P — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.36494 of 2022

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Ravi Kumar Mulukuri .... Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue(Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and Others.

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms.Popuri Lakshmi Priyanvita Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Stamps & Registration

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration appearing for the respondents.

¶12

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 4^th respondent in not registering the document in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.466.66 sq.yds., situated in R.S.No.417/4 & 418/1, Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, even though there is no specific order prohibiting him from registering, as unjust, arbitrary etc.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits

¶14

that the petitioner purchased the subject matter land through a

¶15

¶16

Sale Deed dated 25.06.2003 from one Vishnumkam Rajahamsa. She submits that when the petitioner tried to sell the subject matter property, the 4^th respondent refused to furnish the market value certificate on the ground that a suit vide O.S.No.59 of 2006 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, was pending filed by one K.Venkata Naveen seeking partition of various properties. In the said suit, interim injunction order dated 31.01.2012 was passed restraining the vendors from alienating items 2 to 12 of Part A and B schedule properties shown in said suit. Subsequently petitioner’s vendor’s vendor died on 06.01.2012 and accordingly, the order passed against the K.Venkateswara Rao is not binding on petitioner’s vendor or the petitioner.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the order in W.P.No.4832 of 2017 dated 20.02.2017 etc., passed with reference to the same survey numbers and the 4^th respondent was directed to receive and register the Sale Deed and prays for a similar order.

¶18

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, it appears that injunction order was passed on 31.01.2012 restraining the

¶19

¶20

respondents/defendants therein from alienating items 2 to 12 of Part A and B schedule properties in the suit and there was no injunction order in respect of Item-1 of plaint A schedule property and the subject land appears to be a part of Item-1 of plaint A schedule property.

¶21

In such circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to present the Sale Deed for registration before the 4^th respondent and on receipt of the same, the 4^th respondent shall receive and process the same for registration in terms of the Stamps and Registration Act, 1908 and without reference to the order dated 31.01.2012 in I.A.No.763 of 2009 in O.S.No.59 of 2006, provided the same is not included in the list of prohibited properties.

¶22

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶23

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

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

¶25

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶26

Date: 23.11.2022 BLV

¶27

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶29

W.P.No.36494 of 2022

¶30

Date: 23.11.2022

¶31

BLV

Ravi Kumar Mulukuri v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Mulukuri v. The State of A.P

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

Talapala Ravi Sankaraiah Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Madhukar Enterprises, Vs Sri Kantilal Dande

M/S.Diamond Commercial Corporation Vs Sri Kantilal Dande, Ias.

C.Bhaskar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Khadervali Vs v.Pulla Rao

Shaik Mahammad Afzal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh