Allowed

Pulluru Srinivasulu, v. The Sub Registrar of Assurances

Telangana HC1 Aug 2012WP/23664/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenges the refusal by the Sub-Registrar to register sale deeds due to a letter from the Divisional Cooperative Officer. The Supreme Court held that such an administrative letter lacks the authority of a Court and cannot prohibit registration outside the statutory prohibition under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to process the documents presented by the petitioners without reference to the letter dated 19.01.2009.

Pulluru Srinivasulu, Vs The Sub Registrar of… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.23664 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 01.08.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Pulluru Srinivasulu & others.

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Kallur & others.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.23664 of 2012

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

The petitioners claim to be the members of Class-IV Employees Cooperative House Building Society, Kurnool. They have been allotted plots by the said society. The petitioners intended to sell the plots allotted to them in favour of the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, they are said to have submitted sale deeds for registration before the SubRegistrar, Kurnool, 1^st respondent herein. Their grievance is that the 1^st respondent is not entertaining the documents on the basis of a letter dated 19.01.2009 addressed by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Krunool, 3^rd respondent herein to the District Registrar, Kurnool, 2^nd respondent herein. Reference was made to W.P.No.25604 of 2008 filed by the Ex-President of the society before this Court. The petitioners contend that the 1^st respondent cannot refuse registration on the basis of such communication.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the

¶15

learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents.

¶16

The 1^st respondent can refuse registration of any document presented before him, if only the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended by A.P. Act 19 of 2007, is attracted. There can also be cases, where orders or decrees prohibiting alienation are passed by the competent Court of law. Even where such orders of temporary and perpetual injunction exist, they would operate only vis-à-vis the parties thereto.

¶17

In the instant case, the only basis for the 1^st respondent in refusing to receive the documents presented by the petitioners appears to be the letter, dated 19.01.2009 addressed by the 3^rd respondent to the 2^nd respondent. A perusal of the same discloses that a request was made by the 3^rd respondent not to register the documents in relation to the plots, only on the ground that W.P.No.25604 of 2008 is pending. On the face of it, the said letter is beyond the scope of the powers of the 3^rd respondent. He cannot assume to himself, the powers of a Court to prohibit transfer or registration.

¶18

Further, even if the petitioners transfer the plots owned by them, such transfer does not affect the rights of persons or agencies including the society, that are not

¶19

parties to the transactions. The execution of such documents shall be without prejudice to the rights of the third parties.

¶20

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the 1^st respondent is directed to process the documents that may be presented by the petitioners without reference to the letter, dated 19.01.2009, addressed by the 3^rd respondent to the 2^nd respondent. No costs.

¶21

As a sequel, WPMP.No.30219 of 2012 stands closed.

¶22

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1^st August 2012 ajr

Pulluru Srinivasulu, v. The Sub Registrar of Assurances

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulluru Srinivasulu, v. The Sub Registrar of Assurances

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

S. Ravi Chandran, Vs South Central Railway

Budhala Sreedevi Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Mandavilli Ratna Manikyamba, Vs The District Registrar

K. Murali Mohan, Vs District Collector

V. Prem Sagar, Vs The State of Ap, rep the Station House Officer

Singhal Payal Vs The Regional Passport officer