Disposed

Karnam Veena v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Oct 2023WP/27855/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that pendency of a civil suit does not automatically prohibit the Registering Authority from entertaining registration documents. The Authority must only verify if there is a specific court order restraining registration before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to verify existence of any prohibitory court order; if none, proceed with registration of the Succession Application.

Karnam Veena Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320s ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR^SUMALATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27855 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Karnam Veena, W/o Late Karnam^{Narender, Age. 41 years, Occ. Agriculture,Ri,/oH.} No. 2-23, Veljerla-1 , Farooqnagar Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District-S09216.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its^{Principal Secretary' Revenue Department,} Telangana Secretariat, BRKRV Bhavan,^Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶13

3 The Tahasildar & Jt. Sub Registrar,^{Farooqnagar, Ranga Reddy District}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by^{declaring the actionof respondent no. 3} unjustly refusing to receive, register^{and release the successionapplication} presented by the petitioner for succession and^{mutation of lands on her name} upon death of her husband, despite^{allottinga slot for registrationand receiptof} mutation and PPB charges through^{challan,solely basingon the pendency of a} civil case filed against her^{husband and without havingany order from the court} restraining registrations as illegal,^{arbitrary, unlawful,without jurisdiction and} contrary to the^provisions of the^{Registration Act, 1908 and in violationof Article} 300-4 of Constitution of^{lndia and consequentlydirect the respondentno. 3 to} receive, register and release the^{succession application presented by the} petitioner over lands in Sy. No. 202tAaA extent Ac. 0-3450^{gts, Sy. No. 203/AA} extent Ac. 1-1250^gts, Sy. No.^{231lAaAextentAc. 1-34 gts' Sy. No. 232lAaA}

¶16

.,t

¶17

extent Ac. 0-03^gts, Sy. No. 233/AaA extent Ac. 0-0750 gts, Sy. No. 234lAaA extent Ac. 0-0950^gts, Sy. No. 235lAaA extent Ac. 0-0700 gts, Sy. No. 236lAaA extent Ac. 0-0900^gts, Sy. No. 238lAaA extent Ac. 0-0750 gts, Sy. No. 26444 extent Ac. 0-31^gts, Sy. No. 265lAaA extent Ac. 0-04 gts, Sy. No. 266/44 extent Ac. 0-07 gts, total extent Ac. 6-0650 gts situated at Veljerla-ll Revenue Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and mutate the name of petitioner in revenue records.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 15'1 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.3 to forthwith receive, release and register the succession application^presented by the petitioner over lands in Sy. No. 202lAaA extent Ac.0-3450^gts, Sy. No.203lAA extent Ac. 1-1250 gts, Sy. No. 231lAaA extent Ac.^'1-34gts, Sy. No. 232lAaA extent Ac. 0-03 gts, Sy. No 233/AaA extent Ac. 0-0750^gts, Sy. No. 234lAaA extent Ac. 0-0950 gts, Sy. No. 235/AaA extent Ac. 0-0700 gts, Sy. No. 236/AaA extent Ac. 0-0900 gts, Sy. No. 238/AaA extent Ac.0-0750gts, Sy. No.264,q4extentAc.0-31 gts, Sy. No. 265lAaA extentAc.004 gts, Sy. No. 266/44 extent Ac. 0-07 gts, total extent Ac. 6-0650 gts situated at Veljerla-ll Revenue Village, Faroognagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and mutate the name of^petitioner in revenue records.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.KRISHNA SHARMA

¶21

co u n s e l ro r th e Re s^po n d e nts N o' 1 to3 ;ltt ia? t lT $'ffi ,, * o r srRA. o N =

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

HOIPBLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.27B 55 of 2023

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri S.Krishna Sharma, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, as weil as Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Starnps and Registration, who is representing all the respondents.

¶28

This Writ Petition is hled seeking ar order in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 i.e., Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar, Farooqnagar, Ranga Reddy District, in unjustly refusing to receive, register and release the Succession Application presented by the petitioner upon the death of her husband, as illegal and unlardul ald consequently, to direct respondent No.3 to receive, register and register the Succession Application.

¶29

Making his submission with regard to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner states that upon the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner moved a Succession Application and the same was received by respondent No.3. Learned counsel states that required stamp duty was paid and the Succession Application was accepted and intimation was given that the legal heirs are i"q:1._"1 t?, _

¶30

¶31

Dr.CSL,.) Il /, ', '-)) ,,/ 'rll

¶32

be present at the given time and location. However, when the petitioner, as directed appeared, respondent No.3 refused to entertain the Succession Application on the grotrnd that a civil suit hled for partition is pending. Learned counsel states that in the civil suit which was filed for partition, no order or direction was given restraining the Registering Authority from registering any documents and therefore, the Registering Authority cannot dishonor the request of the petitioner. 4. l,earned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing all the respondents, seeks the Court to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits 5. Pendency of a civil suit does not rpso facto rnean that the Registering Authority is injuncted from entertaining any documents for registration with regard to the subj ect property which is covered under the said civil suit. Unless and until there is ar order of prohibition from alienation/ conveya-nce or a direction to the Registering Authority not to entertain ary documents, the Registering Authority cannot refuse to receive the documents filed for registration. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Registering Authority is required to be directed to verify about the presence of any order by any competent Court restraining

¶33

¶34

Dr C'SL. J ll/ P No.27855 of 202 J

¶35

,r/
.(

¶36

registration of the documents filed and thereafter, to proceed with the registration. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction:-

¶37

Respondent No.3- Tahsildar-cum-Joint SubRegistrar, Farooqnagar, Ranga Reddy District is directed to verify whether any order is passed by the competent Court or whether the subject property covered under the Succession Application is kept in prohibitory list and in case, it is found that there is no such order of restraint or prohibition, he shall proceed with the registration of the Succession Application presented by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed'

¶39

sD'I'MoHR'3AWf'#LitAt ,/TRUE^coPYI/ sECTIoNYFFICER

BSK0"-

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1011012023

ORDER

.':11 i-,/!Ti- o^-
lq 1t tl\ im

¶46

WP.No.27855 of 2023

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

nAA--
L6\ n2
(

Karnam Veena v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnam Veena 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

G. Krishna Kumari Vs G. Ashok Babu

Sri. M. Ravinder Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dommeti Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sunki Reddy Jyotsna Vs The State of Telangana

Gubba Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Saanvi Developers Vs The State Of Telangana