Registration Act - This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the proceedings in Draft Memo No.G2/19134/2011, dated 01-12-2011, issued by respondent No.1 whereby he has directed respondent No.2 to instruct the concerned Sub-Registrars to follow the interim injunction orders in Contempt Petition No.1205 of 2010 passed by the Madras High Court, as illegal and arbitrary - Unless a Court of competent jurisdiction has granted injunction against alienation of the properties in respect of which documents are sought to be registered by the petitioners, respondent No.3 cannot refuse registration of the same. Respondent No.3 is, therefore, directed to receive and register the documents that may be presented by the petitioners, subject to the latter complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, unless there is an order of injunction against alienation of the properties in question by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.4620 of 2013, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.3714 of 2013
Date:07.02.2013
Between:
Veginaty Osura Reddy and another                                                                 
... Petitioners

And
Commissioner and Inspector General of
Registration and Stamps,
Govt. of A.P., Registration Bhavan
M.J. Market, Hyderabad and two others                  
... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner           :  Sri Vedula Srinivas
Counsel for the Respondents       : AGP for Revenue




The Court made the following:
Order
:
          This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the proceedings in Draft Memo No.G2/19134/2011, dated 01-12-2011, issued by respondent No.1 whereby he has directed respondent No.2 to instruct the concerned Sub-Registrars to follow the interim injunction orders in Contempt Petition No.1205 of 2010 passed by the Madras High Court, as illegal and arbitrary The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 to receive and register the documents that may be presented by them for registration in respect of the properties situated in Sy.Nos. 677, 682 and 678/1 of Gurajala Revenue Village, Narsaraopeta, Guntur District.  
The petitioners claim to have purchased the abovementioned lands from the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society (ABFMS).  The petitioners pleaded that they developed the said lands into plots and sold some of them under registered sale deeds.  The grievance of the petitioners is that when they intended to sell the remaining plots also, respondent No.3 is not entertaining and registering the documents sought to be presented by them basing on the impugned proceedings of respondent No.1, dated 01-12-2011.       
          Unless a Court of competent jurisdiction has granted injunction against alienation of the properties in respect of which documents are sought to be registered by the petitioners, respondent No.3 cannot refuse registration of the same.  Respondent No.3 is, therefore, directed to receive and register the documents that may be presented by the petitioners, subject to the latter complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, unless there is an order of injunction against alienation of the properties in question by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 
          Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.4620 of 2013, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
  ________________________
                                       C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Dt: 07-02-2013
SKA/LUR

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.