Allowed

T. Prasad v. State of a.P., rep. by its Commissioner and Inspector General

Telangana HC9 Jun 2011WP/8309/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Sub-Registrar was not justified in refusing to register a mortgage deed to the State Bank of India solely because a separate writ petition challenging final revenue orders was pending. The pending litigation did not concern the specific immovable property offered as security. The writ petition was allowed with directed relief.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub-Registrar to receive and register the mortgage deed without hesitation due to the pendency of W.P.No.1427 of 2010.

T. Prasad Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Commissioner… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8309 of 2011

Date:09.06.2011

Between:

T.Prasad

..... Petitioner

AND

State of Andhra Pradesh, and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Karuna Sagar

¶11

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Revenue,

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition has been instituted for declaring the action of third respondent – Sub-Registrar, Badvel, Cuddapah, in declining to register the mortgage deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the State Bank of India, Rangasamudram Branch, Cuddapah District, in respect of immovable property of an extent of 588.302 sq. yards situate in survey No.1107 and another extent of 200 sq. yards in survey No.1106/3 of Rangasamudram Village as bad in law.

¶14

The petitioner has asserted that he has purchased open land of an extent of 588.302 sq. yards situate in survey No.1107 of Rangasamudram Village from its previous owner Sri E. Balarangaiah, vide a registered sale deed bearing No.1762 of 2010 executed on 01.07.2010. It is also stated that the predecessor in interest of the

¶15

petitioner in turn purchased the said property by way of a registered sale deed bearing No.397 of 2008 executed on 31.03.2008 from Smt.J.Ramulamma, W/o Brahmaiah. Since the petitioner proposes to avail a loan facility under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme from State Bank of India, he offered the immovable property owned by him as security and thus mortgaged the same. When the mortgage deed is presented for registration, third respondent – Sub-Registrar has raised an objection that the document in question cannot be registered as there was litigation pending in this Court in the form of W.P.No.1427 of 2010. While it is true that the said writ petition is still pending, it would be appropriate to notice that the said writ petition has been instituted calling in question the validity of letters dated 07.08.2008 and 06.10.2008 addressed by the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel and proceedings dated 01.12.2008 and 03.09.2009 issued by the Tahsildar, Porumamilla Mandal. Therefore, there is no justification whatsoever for the third respondent to decline to register the mortgage deed executed by the petitioner in favour of State Bank of India, Rangasamudram Branch over the immovable property owned by him.

¶16

It is hardly in doubt that the property owned by the petitioner situate in survey No.1107 or survey No.1106/3 of Rangasamudram Village is not the subject matter exclusively of any subsisting litigation. In that view of the matter, the mortgage created by the petitioner to the extent of 588.302 sq. yards of open site situate in survey No.1107 and 200 sq. yards of open site standing in survey No.1106/3 of Rangasamudram Village could not have been objected to by the third respondent.

¶17

Hence, the third respondent is directed to receive, entertain, process and deal with the document presented by the petitioner in accordance with law without in any manner hesitating to do so only due to the pendency of W.P.No.1427 of 2010 or any other civil litigation with which the subject property is not concerned. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of, with the consent given by the

¶18

learned Government Pleader for Revenue. No costs.

¶19

____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶20

09^th June, 2011 Note: Issue CC in one week.

¶21

(B/o) GHN

T. Prasad v. State of a.P., rep. by its Commissioner and Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Prasad v. State of a.P., rep. by its Commissioner and Inspector General

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

R. Padmavathi, Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

M. Sharmila Reddy Vs The District Collector

Medikonda Nageswara Rao Vs The sub Registrar, Singarayakonda

Smt. Cherukuri Nagendramma Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Siramdas Janaiah Vs The State of Ap Rep by its District Collector

R.S.Kumar Sankar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh