Dismissed

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

Telangana HC16 Nov 2012WA/537/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice and Justice Afzulpurkar dismissed this writ appeal where the petitioner sought cancellation of a registered document. The court held that the Writ Court lacks power to declare a document void or grant cancellation relief when the petitioner is not a party to the instrument.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. No costs awarded.

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

¶1

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

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO.537 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:16.11.2012

¶5

Between: M. Rama Krishna … Petitioner And The Commissioner and I.G. of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh Mozamjahi Market Hyderabad and another … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.537 OF 2012

¶8

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

¶9

This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.2.2.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.2610 of 2012.

¶10

The appellant – petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the proceedings No.S1/5207/2010, dt.12.10.2011 issued by respondent No.1 – Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. By the said proceedings, respondent No.1 came to the conclusion that either under Section 69 or any other Section of the Registration Act, 1908 or under any Section of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the said authority had no power to cancel the validated document or subsequently registered documents. In the absence of such power, the petition of the appellant – writ petitioner was rejected by the said authority.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Hon’ble Single Judge held that the appellant - petitioner is not a party to the document in question. The petitioner asserts title in the land and claims to have filed a suit for partition and that he is not able to refer to any provision which could enable him to seek cancellation or confers power upon respondents to cancel the registration. His Lordship further held that if the petitioner’s right has been effected and the petitioner wants to ask for cancellation of the document in question, he has to file a suit for declaration duly impleading the persons against

¶12

whom he claims relief and dismissed the writ petition.

¶13

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant – writ petitioner.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant tried to impress upon us that the Writ Court can declare the document in question as null and void.

¶16

In our opinion, the Writ Court has no power to declare the document, which cannot bind the parties, as null and void, when the appellant – writ petitioner is not a party to the said document. In these circumstances, the relief for cancellation of the document in question cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in respect of the order so passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. We do not find any merit in this appeal.

¶17

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶18

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶19

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 19.11.2012

¶20

bnr

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Padarthi Siva Balasubba Rao Vs Dr. M Ravindranath Reddy

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Vs Jakkula Shanker

Juvva Prabhakara Rao S/o.Juvva Kondala Rao, Vs State Bank of India

Bande Siva Sankara Srinivasa Satya Sai Prasad Vs Saripella Srinivasa Raju

Bande Siva Sankara Srinivasa Satya Sai Prasad Vs Immaneni Venkata Subba Rao

M/s Radhika Rice Industries, Vs State Bank of India