the assignment was made in his favour on payment of market value.= refusing to receive and register the documents in respect of his house plot in Sy.No.680/A of Somisetti Nagar, Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District on the ground that the said plot is assigned land. It is the case of the petitioner that the assignment was made in his favour on payment of market value.


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITON  No.7978 of 2013

 

Date: 18.03.2013



Between:-


P. Bheemanna
… Petitioner

and



The Joint Sub-Registrar, Kallur Mandal,
Krishna Nagar, Kurnool-518002 and another
… Respondents







         











This Court made the following:-

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITON  No.7978 of 2013


ORDER: -

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the action of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kallur Village, Kurnool District, in refusing to receive and register the documents in respect of his house plot in Sy.No.680/A of Somisetti Nagar, Kallur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District on the ground that the said plot is assigned land.  It is the case of the  petitioner that the assignment was made in his favour on payment of market value.
2.  In Raavi Satish Vs State of Andhra Pradesh[1], this Court, while dealing with various issues relating to the subject of registration of documents pertaining to immovable properties, also had occasion to deal with issue of assignment of land on payment of market value.  Paragraph 35(H) of the said judgment reads to the effect that the Registering Authority shall not refuse to register a document in this regard, unless the assignment deed stipulated any period during which the land shall not be sold and if the stipulated time had not expired.   The Joint Sub-Registrar, Kallur Mandal, shall therefore abide by the directions of this Court in Raavi Satish1 and more particularly, paragraph 35(H) thereof. 
3.  The writ petition is closed with the above directions. W.P.M.P.No.9991 of 2013 shall stand closed in consequence.  No costs.

_____________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J

Date : 18.03.2013
Gvl/Bss

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRIT PETITON  No.7978 of 2013




















18.03.2013






Gvl/Bss


[1] 2013(2) ALD page.1

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.