The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a Single Judge's order that stayed injunction orders restraining alienation of properties. The bench held that Registering Authorities must comply with court injunctions under Standing Order 219(b) and dismissed the appeal.
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.
[32e5]
6
_
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 796 OF 2022
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal preferred against the order dated2911012022 passed in LA.No.6 of 2022in lA.No.1 of 2021 in W P No 12701 oI 2021 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under sectaon 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the rmpugned order dated.29-10-2022-2020 in l.A No.6 of 2022 inwp
No.12701 of 2022, by vacating the order dated.04-06-2021 in lA No.1 of 2021 in WP No.'12701 of 2021,, pending disposal of the writ Appeal and pass
Counsel for the Appellant : SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 : SRI C.KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 7 : SRl. P. RAJA SRIPATHI RAO, GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATIONS
Counsel for the Respondents No.8 to 18 : NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
HC] & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022
3
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
ANI)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.796 of 2o22
JUDGMENT i Per the Hon'bte the Chief JtLsttce ujjal Bhugan)
Heard Mr. Bethi Venkateshu,arlu, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. C.Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Stamps ald Registration lor respondent Nos.4 to 7
4
HC] & CVBRJ W.r.N_o.796 of 2022
petitiorl seeking the foliowing relief:
"lt is therefore prayed that this Honbie Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Marrdamus, cieclaring the action of the respondent No..4 in entertaining and registering the sale deeds ald other conveyance deeds in favour of prospective purchasers in respect of the la:nd bearing Sy. Nos. 12C_Adm.Ac.S. 1sgts, Sy.No. 12 i-Adm. Ac.5.02 gts, Sy.No. 122_Adrn.Ac.2.04gts, Sy. No.123-Adm.Ac.1.3tgts, Sy.No.I24lt Adm_Ac.O.22gts, Sy.No.124l2-Adm.Ac.O.02gts, Sy.No.t25_Adm.Ac.1.16gts, Sy. No.126-Adm.Ac.0.38gts, Sy.No.127_Adm.Ac.1.13gts, Sy.No. 139-adm.Ac. 15.08gts, Sy.No. i4C, adm.Ac. t 2.OZgts, Sy.No. 141, adn.Ac.7.22gts, Sy.No.l55-adm.Ac. l3.37gte, Sy.No.156. adm-Ac.6.13gts and Sy.No.157, adm_Ac.20.Oggts, torally admeasuring Ac.93.38gts situated at Kuntlcor Village, Hayathnagar Ma-ndal, Ranga Reddy District, despite acknorvledging the representation. dated 25.06.2O2O (received on 27.O7.2O2O) and 22.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner thereby informing the respondent No.4 about the ad-interim Injunction granted by leamed II Addilional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagai restraining the respondent Nos.S to 15 from alienating or tralsferring the petition schedul.e "A to C" properties till disposa-l of the suit in OS.No.383 of 2O 13 as arbitrary, illegal. contrar;r to ttre Stalding Order 219(b), the circular memo, dated 10.03.2010 issued by 2"a respondent and also the various orders of this Hon'ble Court including Common Order, dated 23.01.2O2O rn wp.Nos.26137 ,22303,26207 & 26236 of 2Ot9 in the interest of justice and consequently clir'ect the respondent No.4 not to
I I
HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022
J
entertain and register any sale-deed/s or conveyance deed/s in respect of the above subject lartd covered by ad-interim injunction orders in IA.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2013 in OS. No.383 of 2013 on the f e of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and pass such other order or orders as this Hontrle Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case."
6
HCJ & CVBRJ WA.No.796 of 2022
protection to respondent Nos. 1,2 & 3 wleen there *,as an attempt to rriolate the injunction order.
B. On O4.06.2021, learned Single Judge granted interim stay as prayed for in the following manner:
r)
HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022
7
"On 01.04.2013, the Court of II Additiona.l District Judge at Ranga Reddy District granted injunction order restraining the respondents/ defendalts from alienating or transferring the schedule A, B and C properties in I.A.No.1132 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013. After contest, the said order is affirmed. Petitioners a1lege that even though the respondent authorities were informed about gralting of injunction order, they are entertaining the documents for registration. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliahce on a deed of conveyar-rce registered by the registering authority on 25.02.2021 and alleges that the registering authority is continued to register the deeds of conveyance.
Having regard to the sarne, ihere sha-ll be interim direction as prayed for. Petitioners are a-lso directed to upload the orders passed by the trial Court as well as this Court in the present *rit petition in 'DHARANI' web portal."
9 . Appellants after getting themselves impleaded AS respondent Nos.B to 21 fi1ed interlocutory applications being LA. Nos .4 to 6 of 2022 for vacating the order dated 04 .06.2021 .
I
8
HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022
HC] & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022
9
\6. The stay vacate petitions filed by the appellants were rejected by the learned Single Judge uide the order dated 29.1O.2022. Relevant portion of the order dated 29.1O.2022 reads as under:
*
"Admittedly, in the present case, the trial Court has granted injunction orders on O I.04.2013 in I.A.Nos. I 132 and 1133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013 and the sarne was subsequently made absolute try the trial Court vide its orders dated 23.OI.2020 in 1.A.Nos.266 and, 268 of 2018 in LA.Nos. 1132 and 1133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013. The prayer sought in the present Wnt Petition is only seeking to direct the respondent No.4 to leceive ald register the subject documents in accordance with the Standing Orders, more particularly, Standing Order iLg, issued by the respond.ent No.2. Even though the learned counsel for the vacate petitioners has reiied on the judgment of the Hon'Lrle Supreme Court in Manda-li Ranganna's case (supra), having regard to the fact that the injunction orders passed by a competent civil Court are subsisting in respect of the suit schedule property, t.l.e remedy open to the vacatepetitioners is to file appropriate application before the very same trial Court seeking their impleadment in O.S.No.383 of 2013 and a,1so for vacating the --injunctionorders. In view of the 56ms, this Court is of the opinion ttrat once the trial Court has passed the injunction
l
10
HCJ & CVBRJ W.4.No.796 of 2022
orders and has also given police i:::otection, if aly direction is issued to t.l-e offrcial responde:rts to register the documents presented by t}le uno{ficial rcspondents, thc very purpose of passing the injunction orders vriil be defeated.
Having regard to t1'e above, this Court does not find any reason to modify the ordcr dated 04 .06.2021 passed by -,his Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Writ petirion No. 12701 of 2O2i. However, it is left open to t]-re vacate petitioners for liling appropriate application before the trial Court seeking modification or vacation of the injunction orders dated 0i.04.2013 in l.A.Nos.1i32 ar-rd i 133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013. If any such application is fiied, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own.merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present order."
la
11 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022
was observed that trial court would consider the same on its own merit.
"An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering ofhcer agajnst the registration of a document executed by such person effecting such property,
(b) "If the Andhra Pradesh High Court or any other Civil Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of the Registering OIIicer or served on the Registering Officer, the Registering Ollicer is estopped from going ahead with the Registration".'
L9. Learned Single Judge in T.Ganesh (supra) referred to
various decisions of this Court where scope of the Standing Order
was gone into. Thereafter, learned Single Judge held that thet Starrding Order has the salutary effect of preventing frustration of
12
HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022
a litigating party enjoying injunction order of the court. It aiso sub-serves a larger public interest by seeking to prevent vexatious litigation flowing out of registration of a document irr respect of land which is subject matter of litigation with restraint order. It has been held as follows:
"14. When a property is subject matter of a case pending before competent Court and such Court passed restraint order, no transactions should be permitted to frustrate the litigation arld affect the rights of a party to the litigation. It would also prevent vexatious litigation and third party ciaims. Though registration of a deed of conveyance cannot vest a better title on the vendee than what was vested in the vendor and transactions made during the pendency of a suit would abide the result of the suit, it is unfortunate but true tllat registered deed of conveyzrnce is made basis for all further claims; transactions; changing physical leatures etc. Further, it is always open to a pafty to the litigation to file appropriate application befon: the Court which granted injunction to seek modilication/ vacation of the order/ to permit to undertake conveyance of the property in issue.
i5. Registering Authority has no role in a dispute between two parties on a landed property and parties are free to agitate/resolve their disputes in the court of law. Registering Authority carnot even be a proforma party to a civil litigation where no relief is sought against him. No declaration can be sought against him. He is only required to discharge his statutory function vested in him under the Registration Act while processing a document presented before
HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.796 of 2022
13
I
him. He does not assess the validity of claims of parties to the document. His role is limited to veri$zing compliance of Stamp Act arrd the Registration Act to the document presented before him. As a statutory authority vested with power to deal with registration of documents presented before him, once he is informed that competent Court granted injunction concerning the subject property, he should not undertake processing of the document arrd should leave it to that Court to regulate the proceedings in the dispute. In view thereof, it is no more open to petitioners to contend that as Registering Authority is not a party to the suit, the injunction order cannot be an obstacle to process the document.
I
1.t
I
HCJ & CVBRJ W.4.No.796 of 2022
2I. As highlighted by the learned Single Judge, Star-rding Order No.219(b) sub-serves a greater public interest by preventing vexatious litigation and third party claims during pendency of a civil suit with injunction order in force.
HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No,796 of 2022
15
any, in this Writ Appeal, sha_ll stand closed.
\
//TRUE COPY'
SD/-M.MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ; tL)
SECTION OFFICER
One fair copy to the Honourable Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
One fair copy to the Honourable Srijustice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy (For His Lordships Kind Perusal)
To,
BSI.(
I I I
?
HIGH GOURT
DATED:0811212022
ORDER
W.A.No.796 of 2022
1
I I ,11.i 'iiiLi
,.,:,/
\i
, ,1'.';t'r',,z"
:--.-*=2'
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
9J
xoD-
)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the registering authority is bound to refuse registration of sale deeds when the properties are subject to a court-granted injunction?
Whether the Registering Authority can be impleaded in civil litigation involving property dispute without seeking specific relief against him?
Smt. M. Suchitra @ Tummalacherla Suchitra
Smt. T. Mahathi
Sri. T.L.Prasad
Sri Baira Shankar
Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi
Ujjal Bhuyan
C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
