Dismissed

K. Sai Ram v. Rayala Vazramma

Telangana HC3 Feb 2022WA/373/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed two writ appeals filed by members of a Housing Association and other interested parties. The appeals challenged an order directing the registration authority to register a document. The court held that since registration was already completed, the appellants should file a suit for title declaration or an application for cancellation of the sale deed if they cl

What did the court decide?

Both writ appeals were dismissed. The appellants free to file a suit for title or cancellation of sale deed. No order as to costs.

K. Sai Ram Vs Rayala Vazramma — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY. THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL Nos. 373 & 375 OF 2019

¶8

WA No.373 of 2019

¶9

Wdt Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal^{preferred againstthe order} dated 04-02-2019^passed in WP No. 1957 of 20l9onthefileof^{theHighCourt.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

K, Sai Ram, S/o. Late K R K^{Murthy,Aged44 years, Occ Private Employee} Member HAECHSL^(Regd. No.^{TBC-269) Membership No.588'R/o. FlatNo} 438, Tirumala Harmony, Beside Saket^{Towers,ECIL- Hyderabad.}

¶12

2 Gottumukkala Uma Devi, D/o.^Krishnam Raju,^{Aged41 years,Oa Private} Employee, I,4ember HAECHSL(Regd.^{No. TBC-269) l.4embership No.177,Rio} H.No.42lA, Vengal Rao Nagar,^{Hyderabad- 500 038.}

¶13

3 G. Ramavatharam, S/o Late. G. Banaiah.^{Age 65 years, Occ RetiredEmployee,} l,4ember HAECHSL^{(Regd. No. TBC-269) Membership No. 464, Plot No524R/o} Flat. No. 5-3, Sri Tirumala Towers,^{Vanitha Colony, Chinathokatta, NewBowen} pally, Secunderabad

¶14

4 S. Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Narsimha Rao, Aged^{gbqqt 59 years, Occ Rtired} Emplolee, Member HAECHSL^{(Regd. No. TBC-269), Membership-No. 190, Fl/o} Ploi No.98, llnd Floor, Vasanth^{Nagar,Kukatpally. Hyderabad - 500072.}

¶15

5 S. Penta Reddy, S/o. Chandra^{Reddy,Aged about58 years,Occ Retired} Emolovee, Member HAECHSL^{(Reqd. No. TBC-269) Membership No. 316, R/o} Ploi No.94O, llnd Floor, Vasanth^{Nagar,Kukatpally, Hyderabad- 500072.}

¶16

...Third Party/Appellants

¶17

AND

¶18

Ravata Vazramma, W/o. Parimi^{Ravindra Kumar,Aged about 31 years, Fyo. Flat} No: 315, Block 3, Srikalyani^{RBRComplex,Miyapur, Hyderabad.}

¶19

...Writ Petitioner/ResPondent

¶20

The State of Telangana., Rep. byits^{Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue} (Stamps and Registration). Secretariat Building, Hyderabad'

¶21

The District Registrar,^{Ranga Reddy District(West), Prashanthnagar,IDA} Kukatpally, Kukatpally^- Hyderabad^{- 500072.}

¶22

The Joint Sub-Registrar,^{RegisteringOfficer (OB),Prashanthnagar,Balanagar,} Ranga Reddy District^- Hyderabad^500072.

¶23

The District Collector, Ranga^{Reddy District,Khairalhabad - Hyderabad -} 500002.

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

lA NO: 3 oF 2019

¶26

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto direct} the Respondents 3 to 5^{herein not lo entertainany sort applications creatingthird}

¶27

party interest in respect of land in Sy No. 77 of Hafeezpet village of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶28

lA NO:⁴ OF 2019

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thal in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to suspend the order dated 04.02.2019 passed in Wp 1957 of 2019 and its subsequent registrations in respect of land in survey No. 77 of Hafeezpet village of Serilingampelly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶30

WA NO: 375 OF 2019

¶31

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Palent preferred against the Order dated 0410212019 passed in W.P. No.^'1988 of 2019 on the fite of the High Court.

¶32

Between:

¶33

K. Sai Ram, Sio. Late K R K Murthy, Aged 44 years, Occ.^private Employee lvlember HAECHSL (Regd. No. TBC-269) lr.4em6ership No.583, R/o. Flbt ilo. 438, Tirumala Harmony, Beside Saket Towers, ECIL - Hyderabad.

¶34

2 Gottumukkala Uma Devi, D/o. Krishnam Raju, Aged 41 years, Occ. private Employee, Member HAECHSL(Regd. No. TBC-260) li,,1emb'ership No.177, R/o. H.No.4214, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038.

¶35

3 G,. Ramavalharam, S/o Late. G. Banaiah, Age.65 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Member HAECHSL (Regd. No. TBC-269) Membership No.464, ptot No 524-Ryo Flat. No. S-3, Sri Tirumala Towers, Vanitha Colony, Chinathokatta, New Bowen pally, Secunderabad.

¶36

4 T. Narsing Rao, S/o T. Packeeriah, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Retired E.lnployee, Member HAECHSL (Regd- No. TBC-269) Membership Number 154, (Plot No. 180), RJo H. No. 292, Comsary Bazaqr, New Bowenpalty, Secunderabad.

¶37

Poshala Upnakar Goud, S/o. Rama Swamy, Aged about 67, Occ. Retired fnlploy-ee, !qry'9"t^{HAECHSL (Regd. No. TB-C-26-9) Membership No. 791, Ryo.} H. No. 8-4-380/1/19/A, Premnagar, Erragadda, Hydeiabad -500072.

¶38

...Third Party/AppeIants

¶39

AND

¶40

L ShaikAbdul Aslam, S/o. Shaik Azeez, Aged about 5Z years, Fyo. H. No. 7-21263/SRT/l008, lndustrial Housing Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶41

...Writ Petitioner/Respondent

¶42

Tte State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Stamps and Registration), Secretariat Building, Hydeiabad,

¶43

The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District (West),^{prashanthnagar,} IDA Kukatpally, Kukatpally - Hyderabad - 500072.

¶44

Ihe Joint Sub-Registrar, Regislering Officer (OB),^{prashanthnagar,} Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District - Hydeiabad - 500072.

¶45

The qistrict Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairathabad - Hyderabad - 500002.

¶46

... Respondents/Respondents

¶47

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶48

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Hlgh Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 3 to 5 herein not to entertain any sort applications which creating third

¶49

¶50

party interest in respect of^{land in Sy No. 77 of Hafeezpetvillage of Seriliongampelly} Mandal, Ranga^{ReddYDistrict}

¶51

lA NO: 2 oF 2019

¶52

PetitionUnderSectionlSlCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit^{filed in supportoi the petition the High Court may be pleasedto suspend the} order dated o4to2l2o1g^{passed in wP. 1988 of 2019and its subsequent registrations} , i".p".t of^{landin suivey No. 77 of Hafeezpetvillageof Serilingampelly Mandal'} Ranga Reddy^District.

¶53

Counsel for the Appetlants(in^{both WA's):SRIC'RAMESH SAGAR}

¶54

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.2 to s(in both WA's):ADDLADVOCATE} GENERAUGP^{FOR REVENUE}

¶55

Counsel for the^{Respondent No,1(in both WA's): None Appeared}

¶56

The Court delivered^{the following:}

¶57

TTIE N' TIIE TIS}T AND THE JUSTI^{CE ABHINAND} s

¶58

THE

¶59

WRIT APPEAL^{Nos.373 and 375 of 2OL9}

¶60

COMMOT{^JITDGMENTi Per^{theHo'l'btetheChielJustrce s:orisrrcha'Ldro shannal}

¶61

Regard being^{had to the controversy involved in the} aforesaid cases,^{tJ:ey were heard together and are being} decided by a^{common judgment.}

¶62

The facts of W.A.No'373^{of 2Ol9 are reproducedas} under:

¶63

The present^{writappealis arising out of an order dated} O4.O2.2Otg^{passedby thelearned Single Judge in} W.P.No.1957 of^{2O 19.}

¶64

The facts of the^{case reveal that the respondent} No, 1/writ^{petitionercarne up beforethis Court stating that} she has^{presented a documentin respect of Flat No40l'} admeasuring 1462^{square feet in Sal Vamsee Projects in} Survey No.77 situated^{at HafeezpetVillage,Serilingampally} Mandal, Ranga Red'dy^{District,and it is not beingregistered} by the Joint Sub-Registrar,^{Registering Officer, RangaReddy} District. The learned^{Single Judge hasdisposed of the writ} petition and the relevant^{portion of the orderpassed by the} learned Single Judge^{is reproduced as under:-}

¶65

"5. In that view^{of the matter, the WritPetitionis} disposed of directing^{the third respondent to receive} and^process the document^{presented by the petitioner} without reference to the^{Notificationdated 26.092013}

¶66

issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. In the event the said document is found to be fit for registration, the third respondent shall complete the due formalities in accordance with law and release the document. However, if he still finds any ground to exercise power under Section-76 oI the Act ol l9O8 and refuse registration, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. This exercise shall be comp)eted expeditiously and in any event, not Iater than one month Irom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that mere registration of this document would not confer title upon the property covered thereby, if it is otherwise wanting, and would not preclude the Government from taking appropriate steps as warranted by law, if it seeks to assert any right or title over the said land."

¶67

It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the

¶68

registration of the document has already been done.

¶69

l,earned counsel for the appellants has argued before this Court that the appellants are also having interest over the subject propert-v-.

¶70

In the considered opinion of this Court, once the registration has already been done, the appellants, in case they are claiming title over the property, can certainly file a suit claiming title / declaration in respect of the said property. The appellants are also certainly free to file an application for cancellation of the sa-le deed. However, it is made clear that the order passed by the learned Single Judge will not create any right in respect of the parties so far as title of the property is concerned.

¶71

¶72

With the aforesaid observations, both the writ appeals

¶73

stand dismissed.

¶74

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha1l

¶75

stand closed. There sha-Il be no order as to costs.

¶76

SD/.CH.VENKATESWARULU OEPUTY IR GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER

¶77

To,

¶78

1 . Two CCs to the Advocate General, High^{Court fortheState of Telangana} [OUT] 2. Two CCs to the GP for Revenue, High^{Court forthe State of Telangana} [OUT] 3. One CC to SRI C.RAMESH SAGAR,^Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two C.D. Copies. 5. One Spare Copy.

MRC

$- SW

! i

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/0212022

COMMON JUDGMENT

WA.Nos.373 & 375 of²⁰¹⁹

¶86

TAT
orr
o 02 t{l't 2C22 oi!
iJ
*

¶87

DISMISSING BOTH^{THE WRIT APPEALS} WITHOUT COSTS,

¶88

\o"
1/t<br>@

K. Sai Ram v. Rayala Vazramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sai Ram v. Rayala Vazramma

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

The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences Vs Dr. Devender Banavath

B.S. Enterprises and 2 others Vs Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. and 2 Others

B. Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

B.Sujatha and 17 others Vs The State of Telangana and 10 others

Mohd.Akheel Ahmed and 8 Others Vs M/s.Psr Constructions and 11 Others

K. Sai Ram Vs Shaik Abdul Aslam