Dismissing a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking direction to declare the registration of property in favor of a third party illegal, the Court held that a mere notice does not bind the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.24862 of 2012
13.8.2012
Between:
Kalavakolanu Anji Ganesh, S/o.Ramakrishna Rao
… Petitioner
AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Stamps and Registration), Secretariat, Hyderabad And others
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24862 of 2012
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in taking steps to register the property purchased by the petitioner admeasuring Acs.0.42 cents covered by Survey Nos.180/6, 384/5 and 384/10 situated at Amalapuram Village in East Godavari District in favour of one Sri Pilli Suresh as illegal and arbitrary.
It is the case of the petitioner that one Sri Vadlamani Uma Maheswara Rao is the owner of the existing tiled house covered by Acs.0.42 cents in Survey Nos.180/6, 384/5 and 384/10 situated at Amalapuram Village in East Godavari District. It is stated that the petitioner offered to purchase the aforesaid land for
Rs.50,00,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards part consideration. It is also stated that before registering the property, the owner Sri Uma Maheswara Rao was kidnapped by Sri Pilli Suresh and he is demanding huge amounts from the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner also filed a suit O.S.S.R. No.3300 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram seeking specific performance of the agreement with regard to aforesaid property. Further, in the writ affidavit, it is stated with regard to kidnap of the vendor of the petitioner by Sri Pilli Suresh and a complaint has also been filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offences under Sections 362, 420 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the vendor of the petitioner has presented the document transferring the property in favour of Sri Pilli Suresh as such the petitioner got issued a notice to the second respondent granted the above said details. In spite of the same, the second respondent is taking steps to register the property in favour of Sri Pilli Suresh. Merely because a notice is issued on behalf of the petitioner about the agreement of sale, it is not binding on the second respondent to refuse any documents, if they are presented for registration and are in accordance with law. If the petitioner apprehends the sale of the land, which is already sold to the petitioner, in favour of third parties, it is for him to obtain appropriate interim order in the suit, which is filed by the petitioner against Sri Uma Maheswara Rao. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, only on the ground that the notice is issued to the second respondent, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. If the petitioner has made any interim application in the suit, it is open to the trial Court to consider the same on merits and without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
________________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 13, 2012 YS
Kalavakolanu Anji Ganesh
Government of Andhra Pradesh
R.Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
