Dismissed

Smt. Amaragonda Ilamma and 5 Others v. Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi and 17 Others

Telangana HC8 Dec 2022WA/797/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Appeal, the Telangana High Court upheld the Single Judge's refusal to direct the Sub-Registrar to register sale deeds on property under an ad-interim injunction. The Court relied on Standing Order 219(b) to prevent fraud and vexatious litigation, holding that the Registering Officer must comply with competent court restraint orders.

What did the court decide?

No order passed; Writ Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Smt. Amaragonda Ilamma and 5 Others Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKA,R REDDY

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 797 OF 2022

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 2911012022 in WP.No. 12701 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Amaragonda llamma, Wo. Beeraiah, Age 52 Years.Occ. House wife, R/o. H.No.15-140, Sri Kodanda Ram Nagar, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar. Hyderabad, T.S -500 060

¶10

Smt. Voragalla Laxmamma, W/o. Late V. llaiah, Age 57 Years occ. House wife, R/o. 12-27.1 . Sri Kodanda Ram Nagar, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar. Hyderabad, T 5-500 060

¶11

Smt. Mutha Renuka, Wo. Mutha Raju, Occ. House wife,Age 36 Years R/o. H. No.9-5-5211/1, Anlaiah Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad

¶12

Sri Voragalla Anil, S/o. Late V. llaiah, Occ. Business,Age 34 Years Rlo. 1227/1, Sri Kodanda Ram Nagar, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, T.S-500 060

¶13

Sri. Voragalla Shankar, S/o. Late V. llaiah, Occ. Business,Age 31 Years R/o. 12-2711. Sri Kodanda Ram Nagar, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnapr, Hyderabad, T.5-500 060 (No.1 to 5 Rep. By their Regd. GPA Holder (vide Doc. No.43 of 2022) namely Sri Shaik Yousuf, S/o. Shaik Ramzan, Occ. Business, R/o, H.No.11-19-32/1/1 , Bhagath Singh Nagar Colony, Saroomagar, Hyderabad, TS)

¶14

Shaik Yousuf, S/o. Shaik Ramzan, Occ. Business, Age 37 Years R/o. H.No.1 1-19-3211/1, Bhagath Singh Nagar Colony, Saroomagar, Hyderabad, T,S,

¶15

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.22 to 27

¶16

AND

¶17

1 Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi, W/o. Sri S Malla Reddy (D/o. Late Sri Alcula Janga Reddy ). aged 66 years, occ House wife, R/o. Plot No. 26, Krishna Reddy Colony, New Bowenpally. Secunderabad -500 011

¶18

Smt Police lVlanemma @ lndlra, W/o. Late Sri P. Balram Redd v (D/o. Late Akula Janga Redd), aged 64 years, occ. House wife, R/o. Plot No.76, Teachers Colony, Thirumalgiri. Secunderabad -500 0 13

¶19

Sri Singi Reddy Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Late Sri. S Yella Reddy, aged 69 years. Occ. Business. R o. G-1, Plot No. 39, Airlines Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad-0'1 1

¶20

... R ES Po N DE Nr"'*=.Ifff,B=*H?

¶21

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Prl, Secretary, Revenue^(Stamps and Registration Department) Telangana Secretariat, at Hyderabad, T S

¶22

The Commissioner and lnspector General, Registration and Stamps, Office at 5-3-953, Nizam Shahi Road, Herza Estate, Mozamjahi I/arket, Hyderabad^- 500 095

¶23

The District Regrskar, Ranga Reddy District. I and ll Floorr, Sony Complex, Prashanthnagar. Kukatpally, Hyderabad -5OO 072

¶24

The Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, T.S

¶25

Smt. A Kalavathi, W/o. Late Srinivas Reddy, aged 59 years, occ. House wife,

¶26

Smt. A Jayasree, Wo. Mr. Susheel Reddy, aged 38 years, occ. House wife

¶27

'10. Mr. A Janga Reddy, S/o. Late A. Srinivas Reddy, aged 36 years, occ. Business

¶28

'1 1.lt/Ir. A Mahender Reddy, S/o. Late A. Srinivas Reddy, aged 35 years, occ. Business (Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 are R/o. Sy.Nos.'152, 153 and 154, Park View Enclave, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad -500 01 1)

¶29

Smt. A Manjula, W/o. Late A. Sudhakar Reddy, aged 5'l years, occ. House wife

¶30

Smt. A Priyadarshini, D/o. Late A. Sudhakar Reddy, aged 35 years, Occ. House wife

¶31

14 Mr. Nikshay Reddy, S/o. Late A. Sudhakar Reddy, aged 29 years, Occ. Business (Respondent Nos. 12 to 14 are R/o. Sy.No.44, Pedda Thokatta, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad -500 01 1)

¶32

15.A. Madhusudan Reddy, S/o. Late A. Janga Reddy, aged 59 years, occ. Business, R/o. H.No 3-9, Kodiphyka Village, Kagaj Madhur Post, Hathnoora Ivlandal, Medak District -502 313

¶33

'16.Smt. G. Swara.jamma, Wo. G. Rami Reddy (D/o. Late B. Narayan Reddy), aged 70 years, Occ. house wife, R/o. 4. Sri Padmanabha Colony, Bapuji Nagar, Bowenpally, Hyderabad, T.S -500 011

¶34

17.Smt. A Narayanamma, Wo. A. Mohan Reddy (D/o. Late B. Narayan Reddy) aged 65 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. Plot No. 4, Flat No.'101, Sri Shyamala Residency, Jaya Enclave, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad, T.S -500 011

¶35

18.Smt. IVL Bhagyamma, Wo. M. Venkata Subba Reddy (D/o. Late B. Narayan Reddy) aged 63 years, occ. House wife, R/o. H.No.18-1-8004/6, Railway Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District, A.P -517 5O1

¶36

... R E s P o N D E N r.'*.

¶37

"J"oJX,%=.T,1?

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstdnces^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} suspend the impugned order dated 2911012022-2020 in l.A No 5 of^{2022 inV{P} No.12701 of 2022, by vacating tf,e order dated.04/06/2021 in lA No.1 of 2021ⁱⁿ WP No.12701 of 2021 , pending disposal of the writ Appeal.

¶40

Counsel forthe Appellants: SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent No.1,2 & 3: SRI C. KUMAR

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 7: SRI P. RAJA SRIPATHI RAO, GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent No.8 to 18:^{- - - -}

¶44

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶45

¶46

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHITYAN

¶47

AND

¶48

,THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶49

\I/RIT APPEAL No.797 of 2022

¶50

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hort'ble the Chief Justice Ujjat Bhugan)

¶51

Heard Mr. Bethi Venkateshwarlu, 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 and Registration for respondent Nos.4 to 7

¶52

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 29.1O.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.Nos.4 to 6 of 2022 in Writ Petition No.12701 of 2O2l rejecting the stay vacate petitions of the appeilants.

¶53

We may mention that respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 as writ petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 1270 i of 2021. Initially appellants were not arrayed as parties therein. Subsequently, they got themselves impleaded as respondenl Nos.22 lo 27.

¶54

Respondent Nos. 1 . 2 & 3 have filed the related writ petition seeking the following relief:

¶55

¶56

¶57

HC] A CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2O22

¶58

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Maldamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in entertaining and registering the sale deeds and other conveyzrnce deeds in favour of prospective purchasers in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos. 120-Adm.Ac.5.15gts, Sy.No.12l-Adm. Ac.5.O2 g!s, Sy.No.122-Adm,Ac.2.O4gts, Sy. No.123-Adm.Ac.1.31gts, Sy.No.124/1 Adm-Ac.O.22gts, Sy.N o. 124 / 2-Adm.Ac-O. O2gts, Sy. No. I 2 S-Adm.Ac. 1. 16gts, Sy. No.126-Adm.Ac.O.38gts, Sy.No.127-Adm.Ac.1.13gts, Sy.No. 139-adm.Ac.15.O8gts, Sy.No.14O, adm.Ac.12-07gts, Sy.No. 14I, adm.Ac.7.22gts, Sy.No. 1S5-adm.Ac.13.37gte, Sy.No. I56, adm-Ac.6.13gts and Sy.No.157, adm-Ac.20.08gts, totaliy admeasuring Ac.93.38gts situated at Kuntloor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, despite acknowledging tJle representalion, dated 25.06.2020 (received on 27.O7.2O2O1 and 22.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner thereby informing the respondent No.4 about the ad-interirn Injunction granted by learned II Additiona-l District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar restraining the respondent Nos.5 to l5 from alienating or tralsferring the petition schedule "A to C" properties till disposal of the suit in OS.No.383 of 2013 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Standing Order 219(b), the circular memo, dated 10.03.2010 issued by 2"a respondent and also the various orders of this Honble Court including Common Order, dated 23.O7.2O2O in Wp.Nos.26137 ,22303,26207 &26236 of 2Ol9 in ttre interest of justice alrd consequentiy direct the respondent No.4 not to entertain and register aly sale-deed/s or conveyance deed/s in respect of the above subject land covered by ad-interim injunction orders in IA.Nos.ll32 and 1133 of 2013 in OS.

¶59

HC] & CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2022

No.383 of 2013 on the hle of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddl' District at L.B.Nagar and pass such other order or orders as this Honbie Court may deem lit and proper in the facts of the case."

¶64

Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 also filed Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2O2l in Writ Petition No.1270 1 of 2021 for a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District not to entertain and register any sale deed(s) or conveyance deed(s) in favour of prospective purchasers in respect of the land mentioned above. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 had contended that they have f,rled O.S.No.383 of 2013 before the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for partition and separate possession of Schedule-A to Schedule-C properties which are part of the above properties; besides seeking mandatory injunction to remove illegal structures thereon. The-"- had filed interlocutory applications being I.A.Nos. 1132 & 1133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2Ol3 wherein civil court passed an order on O1.O4.2013 granting ad-interim injunction as prayed for. Thereafter civil court also passed an order providing for police .protection^{to respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 when there} 'uvas an attempt to violate the injunction order.

¶65

¶66

¶67

HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2022

¶68

Grievance made before the learned Single Judge was that notwithstanding such injunction order, several parties notebiy respondent Nos.S to 15 were alienating the concerned properties in favour ol third parties. Representation was made before the Sub-Registrar not to entertain request for registration of sale deeds etc., for alienation of land since the properties 1n question is subject matter of a civil suit with pending injunction order.

¶69

Respondent Nos.l, 2 & 3 also relied upon Standing Order No.219 dated 10.03.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration ald Stamps, Government of Telangana which states that if any court order restraining alienation of property is brought to the notice of the registering authority, the registering authority would be estopped from going ahead u.ith registration.

¶70

B. On 04.06.202 1, learned Single Judge granted interim stay as prayed for in the following ma-nner:

¶71

"On 01.04.2013, the Court of II Additional District Judge at Ranga Reddy District granted injunction order restraining

¶72

¶73

HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2022

¶74

¶75

¶76

the respondents/ defendarts from alienating or transferring the schedule A, B alrd C properties in I.A.No.1132 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2O 13. After contest, the said order is a-ffirmed. Petitioners allege that even though the respondent authorities rvere informed about granting of injunction order, they are entertaining the documents for registration. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a deed of conveyance registered by the registering authority on 25.02.2021 and alleges tlat the registering authority is continued to register the deeds of conveyance.

¶77

Having regard to the same, there sha-ll be interim direction as prayed for. Petitioners are also directed to upload the orders passed by the trial Court as weil as this Court in the present writ petition in 'DHARANI'web portal."

¶78

Appellants a-fter getting themselves impleaded S respondent Nos.22 to 27 flled interlocutory applications being LA.Nos.4 to 6 of 2022 for vacating the order dated 04.06.2027 .

¶79

Learned Single Judge by the order dated 29.10.2022 declined to vacate the interim order but granted leave to the appellants to file appropriate application before the trial Court for modification of the injunction order.

¶80

l1 Arrorieved hv lhe aforesaid order the nresent anneal has been preferred.

¶81

6 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2022

¶82

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants a-re not parties to O.S.No.383 of 2013 stated to have been instituted by respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Therefore, the injunction order obtained by respondent Nos.l, 2 &, 3 in the said civil suit would not be binding or effective on the appellants. Appellants had purchased the property follor,ving the due process; therefore the registering authority cannot refuse registration of the sale deed. Learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the stay vacate petitions.

¶83

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In addition, he has also placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in T.Ganesh v. State of Telangana, Writ Petition Nos.26137, 223o3, 26207 & 26236 of 2019, decided on 23.O1.2O2O.

¶84

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court.

¶85

HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2022

¶86

¶87

¶88

i5. We have already noted the initial interim order passed by the learned Single Judge

¶89

Tht-' 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 29.10.2022 reads as under

¶90

"Admittedly, in tJ:e present case, the trial Court has gralted injunction orders on 01.04.2013 in I.A.Nos.l132 and 1 133 of 20 13 in O-S.No.383 of 2013 and the sarne was subsequently made absolute by the trial Court vide its orders dated 23.01.2020 in I.A.Nos.266 and 268 of 2018 in I.A.Nos- 1 132 and I 133 of 2O 13 in O.S.No.383 of 2013. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is only seeking to direct the respondent No.4 to receive and register the subject documents in accordance with the Standing Orders, more particularly, Standing Order 219. issued by the respondent No.2. Even though the learned counsel for the vacate petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malda-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, the remedy open to the vacate petitioners is to frle appropriate application before the very same trial Court seeking their impleadment in O.S.No.383 of 2013 and also for vacating the injunction orders. [n view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that once the trial Court has passed the injunction orders and has also given police protection, if any direction is

¶91

I t

¶92

HCJ & CVBRJ w.A.No.797 of 2022

¶93

¶94

ll II

¶95

issued to the ofhcial respondents to register the documcnts presented by the unofficia.l respondents, the very purpose of passing the injunction orders will be defeated.

¶96

Having regard to the above, this Court does not find any reason to modify the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by this Court in I.A.No.l of 2O2l in Writ Petition No.1270i of 2021. However, it is left open to the vacate petiLioners for filing appropriate application before the trial Court seeking modification or vacation of the injunction orders dated 01.04.2013 in I.A.Nos.1132 and 1 133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2OI3. If any such application is filed, the tria.l Court shall consider the same on its own merits without being influenced by any of t1.e observations made by this Court in the present order."

¶97

From the above, we find that learned Single Judge had taken the view that once the trial court has passed the injunction order and has also granted police protection, any direction issued to the registering authority to register the documents presented by the unofficial respondents would frustrate the very purpose of the injunction order. Therefore, learned Single Judge did not lind any good reason to modily the order dated 04.06 .2021 . However, learned Single Judge gave liberty to the vacate petitioners i.e., the appellants to file appropriate application before the trial court for

¶98

¶99

HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2022

¶100

¶101

was observed that trial court would consider the same on its own merit.

¶102

Though T.Ganesh (supra) is a decision of a Single Bench of this Court, certain observations made thereii qua Standing Order No.219 r.r.ould be relevant. As noticed above, Standing Order No.2 1 9 restrains the registering authority from registering any' s:-{e deed etc., in the event there is an injunction order of any court of 1arv. Standing Order No.2l9 reads as follows:

¶103

"An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering ofhcer against the registration of a document executed by such person effecting such property,

¶104

(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 Olficer or served on the Registering OIIicer, the Registering Oflicer is estopped from going ahead with the Registration"."

¶105

Learned Single Judge in T.Ganesh (supra) referred to various decisions of this Court where scope of the Standing Order rvas gone into. Thereafter, learned Single Judge held that the Standing Order has the salutary effect of preventing frustration 91

¶106

{

¶107

¶108

HCl & CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2022

¶109

a litigating party enjoying injunction order of the court. It also sub-serves a larger public interest by seeking to prevent vexatious litigation flowing out of registration of a document in respect of lard which is subject matter of ritigation with restraint order. It has been held as follows:

¶110

"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 and aIlect the rights of a pa-rty to the iitigation. It would also prevent vexatious litigation and third party claims. Though registration of a deed of conveyalce 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 that registered deed of conveyance is made basis for all further claims; tralsactions; changing physical features etc. Further, it is always open to a party to the litigation to file appropriate application before the Court which gralted injunction to seek modification/ vacation of the order/ to permit to undertake conveyance of the propertlr in issue.

¶111

¶112

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 cannot even be a proforma party to a civil litigation where no relief is sought against him. No declaration can be sor_rght aganst him. He is onl;r r-equrr-ed to discharge his statutory function vested in him under the Registration Act while processing a document presented. before

¶113

¶114

HCJ & CVBRI W.A. No.797 of 2022

¶115

I lt

¶116

him. He does not assess the validity of claims of parties to the document. His role is limited to veriffing complialce of Stamp Act and 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 tJ'.e subject property, he should not undertake processing of the document and 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 Registedng Authority is not a party to the suit, the injunction order ca:nnot be al obstacle to process the document.

¶117

i6. The Standing Order 219 (b) also sub_serves larger public intcrest. It seeks to prevent vexatious litigation flowing out of registration of a document and such course cannot be held as amounting to illegal exercise of power. The stark reality is registration of a document concerning immovable property spins off mtrltiple transactions and generates third party claims/litigation. In the present context of long pending litigation in Courts, it is helping the fraudsters to create mr-rltiple transactions ald spinning off more litigation. All this car-t be a'"'erted if the registering authority exercises his restraint. Al1 this spin off can be averted if registration of the document, concerning a property which is subject matter of a case pending in competent Court and that Court granted injunction, is denied. It may be true that the litigation instituted on the property is vexatious/fraudulent arld intend to blockmail/ha.rass a true owner of the property and deprive him from enjoving ttre property, but this is for the comperent Collrt to assess and to pass appropriate orders. It is no part of the registering authority,s job to go into those aspects."

¶118

¶119

HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2022

¶120

We are in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in T.Ganesh (surpa) and approve the same

¶121

As highlighted by the learned Single Judge, Standing 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.

¶122

Registering authority as a statutory authority vested with the power to deal with registration of documents presented before him, is bound to comply with orders of the competent court granting injunction 1n respect of the property for alienation of which sale deed is sought to be registered before him.

¶123

in such circumstances and having regard to the above, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference.

¶124

Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Horvever, there shall be no order as to costs

¶125

HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.797 of 2022

¶126

¶127

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appea-I, shall stand closed.

¶128

I I i

¶129

,.rrrt""'ilSEHiR //TRUE COPY// U SECTION OFFICER

¶130

I \

¶131

To, 1 One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI C.^{KUMAR,Advocate} [OPUC] 5, Two CCs to SRI^{P. RAJASRIPATHI RAO,GP FOR STAMPS AND} - nEcrSf aArioN, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies BN BS X,r/ Z Y/

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811212022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.797 of 2022

1- t..€ ST.1;
q. /...
i.\ .
I co)q [ 6 JA!'l 209 (.
I
<br>':i1;.1;i_ 1'

¶137

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOLJT COSTS