Allowed

Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Apr 2021WP/9723/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to register sale deed for open plots citing injunction in unrelated suit. Court directed 4th respondent to register document complying with Registration and Stamp Acts, noting injunction applies to different land and parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed 4th respondent to register subject property without reference to injunction order in I.A. No. 117 of 2020 in O.S. No. 10 of 2020 if otherwise in order and compliant with acts.

Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

t2s86 l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO /-

IANo. I OF202l IN

WP NO: 9723 OF 2021

Between:

Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, S/o. Late Mohd. Alauddin Ansari,

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

(Petitioner in WP. No. 9723 of 2021 on the file of High Court)

¶12

ANI)

¶13

l. The State of Telangana, tbough Stamps and Registration Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration, Nizamshahi Road, Moazzamjahi Market, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶15

The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana,

¶16

The Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Kandi, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana

¶17

Dr. S Laxma Reddy, Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Kandi, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana

¶18

...Respondents @espondents^in-do-)

¶19

Counscl for the Petitioner SRI MOHD. ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI (PARTY rN PERSON)

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 5 : GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶21

Petition under Section 151 of 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 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 23.03.2021, pending disposal of WP No. 9723 of 2021 , on the file of the High Court.

¶22

The court while directing issue of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the following. (The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt ofnotice in the case).

¶23

O]IDER:

¶24

"The^{document presentedby the petitionerfor registrationof open plot Nos.229,} 230,233 and 23.1 admeasuring each 200 sq 1'ards (total 800 sq yards), situated in Sri Sai Baba Housing Colony, in Survey No. 63, 68 and 64lA, Pocharam village, Patancheru mandal, Sanga Reddy district was refused on the ground that the subject land is covered by injunction order granted in I.A No, ll7 of 2020 in O.S. No. 10 of 2020 on the lile of the

¶25

Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶26

According to parlv-in-person, the suit schedule property in O S No. 10 of 2020 is entirely different from the subject property owned by petitioner and that his vendor is not defendant in the suit. He further submits that subject property is no way concerned with 'Saibaba^{NagarWelfare Association'.}

¶27

The operative portion ofthe order in I A No. 117 of2020 in O.S. No. 10 of2020 on the frle ofthe Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy reads as under:

¶28

"Issue^{Ad-interim injunction is} ordered and the Respondents/I)efendants herein henchmen, agents, servants etc., are hereby restrained by way of an interim injunction from alienating or creating any charge or mortgaging the petition schedule property in favour of third parties, till disposal of the main suit until 31.1.2020. Issue urgent notice to the respondents/defendants returnable by 3 1.01,2020."

¶29

On bare reading of the above injunction order, it is seen that injunction was granted against defendants in the suit restraining them from alienating or creating any charge or mortgage of the petition schedule property in favour of third parties till disposal of the main suit. The schedule of the property is, Agricultural land bearing survey No. 64lA, admeasuring Ac.3.19 guntas, Pocharam village, Patancheru mandal, Sangareddy district.

¶30

Prima facie, from the material placed on record, it appears that the tand which petitioner intends to purchase is different from subject land in O.S. No. l0 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The vendor of the petitioner is not a party to the suit. Prima facie, injunction order is operative inter parties.

¶31

That being so, the registering authority-4th respondent is directed to register the subject property of the petitioner without reference to injunction order in I A No. 117.of 2020 in O.S. No. l0 of 2020 on the file of the Principat District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, if the same is otherwise in order and is in compliance with the Registration Act' 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶32

It is made clear that any such registration does not accrue any right^{to the petitioner} and such registration shall abide the out come of this ryrit^{petition.The petitionercannot} claim any equities based on registration of the document."

¶33

sD/-^t(.SHYLESHT ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶34

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, State of^Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶35

The Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration,^{NizamshahiRoad,} Moazzamjali Market, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶36

The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, 4. The Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Kandi, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana

¶37

Dr. S Laxma Reddy, Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Kandi, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana (Addressees 1 to 5 BY RPAD)

¶38

Two CCs to GP for Stamps & Registration, High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad (ouT)

¶39

one CC to Sri Islamuddin Ansari, party in person(OPUC) 8. one Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

PNR,J

DATE: 28-04-2021

ORDER

I.A. NO.l 0F 2021 IN

wP. NO. 9723 0F 2021

DIRECTION

L
<br>5
d otltt'I 2u1 i]
<br>*
, DesplT

Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari v. The State of Telangana

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

Manimaddi Komuraiah Vs Manimaddi Buchaiah

Palla Nagi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Emmadi Someshwer Vs The Special Tribunal at Mahabubabad

N. Venkata Subba Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Sri Meda Venkata Narsimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Yasa Venkatram Narsaiah, Vs The Stale of Telangana