Allowed

M/s Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC19 Feb 2021WP/3983/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition directed the Government and Sub-Registrars to make cancellation entries in land records regarding sale deeds held void by a competent civil court judgment, declaring them invalid due to a prior revoked gift deed.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 1 to 3 to consider petitioner's representations dated 10.07.2020 and 28.07.2020 in light of the civil court decree and make cancellation entries as expeditiously as possible.

M/s Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of Telangana… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶5

wRtr PETtTtoN NO. 3983 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

[\i]/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Col Ranga Rao Narne (Retd), Sio. late N. V. Naidu, aged about 77^years, occupation: Busihess office at 1 Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad, Telangana 500 009

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Government of Telangana, represented by Commissioner and^{lnspectorGeneral} Department of Registration and Stamps ltlojamjahi Market, Hezza^Estate Hyderabad, Telangana 500 095

¶11

District Registrar, Nalgonda District.

¶12

Sub-Registrar, Bhongir.

¶13

Sub-Registrar, Bibinagar.

¶14

Vakiti Ram Bhoopal Reddy, S/o Anantha Reddy, aged^{about 40 years,} occupation. Agriculture R/o Kondamadugu village, Bibinagar^{mandalYadadri} Bhuvanagrri District.

¶15

Vakiti Suresh Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, aged about 59^{years, occupation.} Agriculture R/o Kondamadugu village, Bibinagar mandal^{Yadadri Bhuvanagiri} District.

¶16

Gaddam Narasimha Reddy, S/o late^[,4uthyam Reddy^{aged about 70 years,} occupation. Employee Guduru village, Bibinagar^{mandalYadadri Bhuvanagiri} District

¶17

...RESP.NDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be pleased} to issue a Writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of^Writof Mandamus to declare that the inaction of Respondent No's 1 to 3 in not^making cancellation endorsements in respect of land admeasuring ac^{19-05 112} Gts^{in sy} nos 427, 427, 428, 429 and 437 of Kondamadugu village against^{gift settlement} deed bearing document nos 5'109/1994 SRO Bhongir dated^{1711011994and sale} deed bearing document no 2049/1996 SRO Bhongir dated 2710311996^{and the} subsequent sale deeds that were executed by Respondent^{Nos 6 and 7 on the basis} of registered sale deed bearing document no 2049/1996 SRO^{Bhongir, as illegal,} arbitrary, in violation of Section 68 of lndian Registration^{Act, 1908 and Rule1 18 of} the TS Rules under Registration Act, 1908 and in violation of fundamental^rightof the Petitioner and against the^principles of natural^justice and; consequently direct the Respondent No's 1 to 3 to act on the representations of the^{Petitionerdated} 1010712020 and 2810712020 to make cancellation entries in the^{records of the}

¶19

Respondent No 3 in respect of land admeasuring ac 1g-os112 gts in sy nos 422,428, 429 and 437 of Kondamadugu village against gift setflement deed bearing document no's 5109/1994 SRo Bhongit dated 1711011994 and sale deed bearing document no 2049119so SRo Bhongir daled 2710311996 and the subsequent sale deeds that were executed by Respondent Nos 6 and 7 on the basis of registered sale deed bearing document no 2049/'1996 SRO Bhongir.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

Petition under Seclion 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 4 not to entertain registration of any document presented for registration by Respondent No's 6 and 7 and the subsequent purchasers from Respondent No's 6 and 7 basing on the sale deed bearing document no 204911996 SRo Bhongir in respect of rand admeasuring ac 1g-os % gts in sy no,s 427, 428, 42g and 437 of Kondamadugu village pending disposal of the writ.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. RAVEENDRA BABU

¶23

counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Gp FoR srAMps AND REGlsrRATloN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7: --

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.3983 oF 202t

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not making cancellation endorsements in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 19-O57zgts., in Sy.Nos.427, 428, 429 and 437 of Kondamadugu village against gift settlement deed document Nos.5109 of 1994, dated 17.10. 1994 and sale deed document No.2049 of 1996 dated 27.03.1996 and the subsequent sale deeds that were executed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the basis of registered sale deed document No.2O49 of 1996 dated 27.03.1996 as illegal and in violation of Section 68 of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 118 of the T.S.Rules under Registration Act, 1908 ad consequently direct the respondent Nos.l to 3 to act on representations of the petitioner dated 10.07.2020 ad 28.07.2O2O to make cancellation entries in the records of the respondent No.3 in respect of subject lands in terms of the judgment and decree dated 2O.O8.2OO7 passed in O.S.No.2O of 1996 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Pleader for Stamps and Registration and perused the record.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the subject lands from one Vakiti Bal Reddy and subject sale deeds were executed on 17.09.94, 22.11.1994 and 23.11.1994. While so, Vakiti Anantha Reddy, son of Vakiti Bal Reddy-vendor of the petitioner, by persuading his father got executed a gift settlement deed in favour of his minor son Vakiti Ram Bhoopal Reddy. After knowing the same, the petitioner got it revoked by Vakiti Bal Reddy, his vendor. Further, taking advantage of

¶31

¶32

the gift settlement deed, Vakiti Anantha Reddy, son of petitioner's vendor, played mischiel and executed various sale deeds in favour of third parties from 1996. Then the petitioner liled suit O.S.No.2O of i996 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed as prayed for after full fledged triai vide^judgment and decree dated 20.08.2007 wherein the Court held that the gift deed dated 17.10.1994 is invalid as there was already an existing sale agreement with the petitioner and that the revocation deed dated 18.1i.1994 is a valid document as the vendor of the petitioner not only revoked the gift deed but also declared it as invalid. It is further held by the Court that the said Ram Bhoopal Reddy the minor or his representative has no right over the properties and that the sale deeds executed by them are invalid. The Court further held that even considering the gift deed is valid, then also said Anantha Reddy has no right to sell the property covered by the gift deed, without permission of the Court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. lt is also declared that the purchasers under the sale deeds executed by Vakiti Anantha Reddy through Gift deed dated i7.10.1994 do not get any right over the property and that the sale deeds are void in law, invalid and unenforceable. The petitioner further submits that he also submitted his representations dated LO.O7.2O2O and 28.07.2020 before the lst respondent stating that all the subsequent transactions pending the suit executed by Vakiti Anantha Reddy are cancelled and declared by the Court null and void by its^judgment and decree dated 20.08.2007 in O.S.No.20 of 1996 and since no appeal is preferred since 12 years after the judgment, the said decision is final and requested the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the entries in their records by virtue of Judgment and decree of the Court.

¶33

¶34

From the above submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representations dated 10.07.2020 and 28.07.2020 submitted by the petitioner in the light of the^judgment and decree dated 2O.O8.2OO7 passed in O.S.No.2O of 1996 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, as expeditiously as possible.

¶35

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT RZIJSTRAR

¶37

,TRUE COPY//

¶38

sEcTloN brHceR

¶39

To, 1. The Commissioner and^{lnspectorGeneral Departmentof Registrationand} Stahps, Covernment of^{Telangana, Ir/ojamjahi \Aarkel,Hezza Estate Hyderabad,} Telangana 500 095

¶40

District Registrar, Nalgonda^District.

¶41

Sub-Reqistrar. Bhonoir.

¶42

One Cito Sri B. Raieendra^{Babu,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶43

i;; ba; 1o GP^{for Stamps and Registraiion,High Court for the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6, Two CD Copies.

N/P

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910212021

ORDER

WP.No.3983 ot²⁰²¹

t{ E SIA IA
o()i 1$i4AB 202t z
'i. .\C)
*
SPr:'.;r 'i

¶52

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

M/s Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Telangana and 6 Others

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

Smt. Gayatri G.Naidu Vs Dattatri Rao and 16 others

Mumtaz Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

P. Janardhan Reddy and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Jadhav Upender Vs The State of Telangana

Sanoberulla Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. S. Girija Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others