Partly allowed

Boya Lakkamma, v. Naraboina Ramachandrudu

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024WA/688/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal, the High Court held that while the registration authorities must delete the property from the prohibited list, they cannot register the sale deed as long as an interim injunction restraining alienation subsists.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to delete the property from the prohibited list; the 6th respondent directed to not register the sale deed as long as the interim injunction continues.

Boya Lakkamma, Vs Naraboina Ramachandrudu — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATTTUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR '

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO^

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N ^

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 688 OF 2021

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^theorders dated 01.12.2020 in W.P.No.22587/2020 on the file of the High Court.,*Between:

¶9

Boya Lakkamma, W/o. Late Boya Kistappa, D/o. Late Boya Narasimhappa, Age 57 years, R/o.D.No.2/53, Kaggallu, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

Naraboina Ramachandrudu, S/o. Naraboina Obuleshu, Age 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 13/8232-12-7, Vijayanagar Colony, Tadipatri Town, Anantapur District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER DISTRICT^

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration Stamps) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District.

¶17

The District Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department, Hindupur, Anantapur District.

¶18

The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hindupur, Anantapur

...RESPONDENTS .

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders passed in W.P.No.22587/2020, dt.01.12.2020. ^

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G. VENKATA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.liSRI P. NARAHARI BABCT

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: GP FOR STAMPS^{AND^}

¶26

REGISTRATION

¶27

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

APHC010410882021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

[3488]

¶33

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶37

WRIT APPEAL NO: 688/2021

¶38

Between:

¶39

...APPELLANT Boya Lakkamma,

¶40

AND

¶41

...RESPONDENT(S) Naraboina Ramachandrudu and Others

¶42

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶43

1.G VENKATA REDDY

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶45

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶46

2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

¶47

3.P NARAHARI BABU

¶48

The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble^{ShJusticeRRaghunandanRao)} The 1 St respondent had approached this Court by way of W.P^No22587 of 2020 with the complaint that the registration authorities^{wererefusingto} of alienation relating to Ac.1.71 cents of land accept and register deeds Village of Hindupur Mandal, situated in Sy.No.22-2 of Srikantapuram Anantapur District, on the ground that the said land was included in the list of

¶49

prohibited properties, maintained under Section 22-A^{oftheRegistrationAct,} 1908. It was the contention of the 1"' respondent that^{thesaidpropertycould} not have been included in the prohibitory list as it^wasa private property belonging to the 1 respondent and that the property would have to be removed from the prohibitory list inview of the earlier^{orderofthisCourt,dated} 27.01.2020, in W.P.No.1418 of 2020.

¶50

A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order,^{dated01.12.2020,had} disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the official^{respondentsintheWrit} Petition to complete the process of deletion of the^{petitioner’slandfromthe} prohibitory list, with a further direction to the 6'^^{respondenttoreceivethe} pending deed of sale and to register the same after^{thepropertyhadbeen} deleted from the prohibitory list.

¶51

Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has moved^{thepresentWrit} Appeal, after obtaining leave of this Court.

¶52

The case-'oTthe appellant is that, the property in^question is a joint family property and that she had already moved O.S.No.287^of2020before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hindupuramu^{forpartitionofthesaid} property.

¶53

She further contended that the Trial Court, by an order, dated 31.12.2020, in l.A.No.459 of 2020 had granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the 1®* respondent from alienating the^{saidpropertytill11.02.2021} and that the said order has been extended from time^totime.

¶54

¶55

\ *

¶56

of the said order of 6. The appellant further contends that, inview injunction, there cannot be any registration of the^{deedofsaleexecutedbythe} respondent.

¶57

In these circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of directing the of deletion of the property from the respondents to complete the process respondent shall not register the document prohibitory list. However, the 6 as long as the interim injunction granted by the Trial^{Courtcontinuestosubsist} and any further action would be subject to the result of the said suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if^any shall stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

^OFFICER SB

To,

(Registration Stamps) Department,

¶64

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue state of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Veiagapudi,, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.

¶65

¶66

1. The District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur. 3 The Tahsildar, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District. 4. The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Hindupur,

¶67

The District Registrar, Anantapur District.

¶68

of the Sub-Registrar, Hindupur, Anantapur

¶69

1. The Sub-Registrar, Office -

¶70

6, One CC to Sri G. Venkata Reddy, Advocate tOPUC] Narahari Babu, Advocate [OPUC] ,,

¶71

1. One CC to Sri P. , High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]

¶72

1. Two CC’s to GP for Revenue & Registration, High Court of A.P. at

¶73

1. Two CC’s to GP for Stamps Amaravati[OUT]

¶74

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED: 10/09/2024

JUDGMENT

WA.No.688 of 2021

1 2 7 SEP 20?'i
’ir Current Section . #

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS

Boya Lakkamma, v. Naraboina Ramachandrudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boya Lakkamma, v. Naraboina Ramachandrudu

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

Kommineni Prakas Rao Vs Daggupati Venkateswarlu

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Y Balasubrahmanyam Died

Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors. Vs Rachamallu Bhirava Konda Reddy and 2 Ors.

Gummadi Srinivas, Vs M/s.Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Pidatala Rami Reddy

Pugachetty Thimmappa, Anantapur Dist and 5 Others Vs S.Narasimhappa, Anantapur Dist and 6 Others