Dismissed

M.Ramakrishna v. The Commissioner and I.G.of Registration and

Telangana HC5 Sept 2012WA/1105/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge's order rejecting petitions to cancel registered documents. The bench held that cancellation requires adjudication of title disputes falling within Civil Court jurisdiction and citing principles of natural justice due to non-joinder of necessary parties.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs.

M.Ramakrishna Vs The Commissioner and I.G.of… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:5.9.2012

¶5

Between: Movva Ramakrishna … Appellant And The Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps & Registration, Andhra Pradesh Mozamjahi Market Hyderabad and another … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2012

¶9

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶10

This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.28.6.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.13441 of 2012.

¶11

Brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Sy. No.105 to the extent of Acs.5.00, situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is said to belong to late father of the appellant - petitioner. One N. Kishore Babu allegedly obtained an agreement of sale-cum- General Power of Attorney, which is allegedly a fabricated one, and claimed the aforesaid property and on that basis he approached District Registrar - respondent No.2 for validation of the agreement and secured the same under endorsement No.5118/G1/1996 dt.3.10.1996. It is also alleged that the said Kishore Babu waited for 23 years and then executed a gift deed bearing document No.6514/97 without notice to the petitioner, who is legal heir. The petitioner questions the legality of the registration of the gift deed on the ground that the alleged agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. dt.3.10.1996 in favour of Kishore Babu was itself an invalid document apart from being fabricated and consequently the document registered as gift deed has no validity in the eye of law. The petitioner appears to have approached this Court earlier and as per the directions in the judgment in W.A. No.638 of 2010 dt.17.12.2010, obtained an order for consideration of his representation, by respondent No.1, on merits. Respondent No.1 has now passed a detailed order in proceedings No.S2/15540/2010, dt.18.10.2011 duly considering the representation of the petitioner dt.10.5.2010 as per the orders of this Court. By a reasoned order respondent No.1 recorded that the said document who

¶12

was tendered in accordance with the Registration Act cannot be cancelled by the registering authority on the ground that the title of the person executing the document was either imperfect or invalid and consequently rejected the petitioner’s representation. The present writ petition was filed challenging the legality of the said order.

¶13

Be it noted, the appellant – petitioner also filed another W.P. No.13426 of 2012 seeking a direction to the respondents not to effect any registration over the land in Sy. No.109/1 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to the unregistered documents in the matter.

¶14

The Hon’ble Single Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, dismissed both the writ petitions by a common order, holding that the writ petitions are affected because of non-joinder of necessary parties and that the petitioner can pursue his remedies in a Civil Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dt.28.6.2012 in W.P. No.13441 of 2012, present appeal is filed.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

It is specifically contended before us on behalf of the appellant – writ petitioner that this Court has jurisdiction to pass an order directing the respondents to cancel the above said alleged agreement of sale dt.3.10.1996 as well as the gift deed.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the Hon’ble Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition, since the persons who would be effected by virtue of the order in the writ petition, were not made parties to the writ petition, and if an order is passed without making them as parties to the writ petition, they would be rendered remediless and such an order will also suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on that ground, this writ appeal is not maintainable.

¶18

It is also evident from the record, as noted above, that the appellant – petitioner seeks to question the registration of the document and seeks cancellation thereof, which raises several disputed questions of fact, including that of title of the said Kishore Babu. The adjudication of such disputed questions virtually amounts to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which is in the domain of competent Civil Court.

¶19

By the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relief of cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted, even assuming that the contentions of the appellant are justified.

¶20

Secondly, the registering authority has a limited power of cancelling registered document only in terms of the Rules under the Registration Act where both parties to the document consent to such cancellation. A Mandamus directing the registering authority to cancel registration as prayed for is, therefore, clearly misconceived and cannot be granted. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and the appeal is devoid of merit.

¶21

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶22

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶23

_______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 5.9.2012

¶24

bnr

M.Ramakrishna v. The Commissioner and I.G.of Registration and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ramakrishna v. The Commissioner and I.G.of Registration and

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

T.Venkataramana Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl.Secretary

Mohd. Khader, Vs The Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Smt Sajida Begum Vs State Bank of India

G.G.Somi Reddy Vs The Commissioner Appeals

The District Collector, Vs Gorantla Butchi Naidu

Boya Lachamma Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration