REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT- unless a statutory notification was published prohibiting registration of the documents pertaining to the land in question, the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, ought not to have refused to comply with the request of the civil Court. As evidently, no such statutory notification has been issued in respect of the land in question, respondent No.1 is directed to furnish the information as sought by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, in his letter in Dis.No.403, dated 10.09.2012, and receive the document that may be sent by the civil Court for registration without feeling bound by the purported prohibitory list, dated 17.02.2010, communicated by the District Collector, Kadapa.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

 

WRIT PETITION No.4501 of 2013

 

Date:22.02.2013

 

Between:

Mallela Seshamma and

two others.

..... Petitioners

And:

The Sub-Registrar,

Proddatur, Kadapa District

and two others.

.....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt V.Sujatha

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue



The Court made the following:
ORDER
:
         
          This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter No.NIL/2012, dated 17.09.2012, addressed by the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Office of the District Registrar, Proddatur, to the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur.
          I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
          The dispute pertains to an extent of Acs.3-04 cents of land in Survey No.344/1 of Bollavaram Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District. In connection therewith, the husband of petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.289 of 2009 in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, for passing a decree directing the legal heirs of late Desu Chenna Reddy to execute rectification deed. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 06.10.2010. After the expiry of the decree-holder, the petitioners have filed E.P.No.51 of 2011 and in the said E.P., the executing Court addressed letter, dated 10.09.2012, to the Joint Sub-Registrar-I for furnishing the Valuation Certificate and the stamp duty payable on the rectification deed. In reply thereto, the Joint Sub-Registrar-I has addressed the impugned letter, wherein he has informed that the land in question is included in the prohibitory list, dated 17.02.2010, maintained under Section       22-A (1) (a) and (b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and communicated by the District Collector, Kadapa and that the said land is classified as “Mines Poramboke”.
          At the hearing, it is not disputed that this Court, on a detailed consideration of the various aspects, issued extensive directions by common judgment, dated 31.12.2012, in W.P.No.30526 of 2012 and batch as to the manner in which the Registering Officers in the State are required to treat the documents presented to them for registration.
          This Court has also considered the legal effect of inclusion of any land in the prohibitory list and held that unless a notification under Section 22-A (2) of the Act was published, the inclusion of the properties in the list prepared by the revenue officials does not deter the Registering Officer from registering the document if he is satisfied that the document which is sought to be registered does not fall in any of the sub-clauses of Section 22-A (1) of the Act.
          In the instant case, the only ground on which the Joint Sub-Registrar-I has declined to issue Valuation Certificate and inform the stamp duty payable to the civil Court is that the land in question was included in the prohibitory list, dated 17.02.2010, communicated by the District Collector, Kadapa.
          In the light of the judgment of this Court referred to above, unless a statutory notification was published prohibiting registration of the documents pertaining to the land in question, the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, ought not to have refused to comply with the request of the civil Court.
          As evidently, no such statutory notification has been issued in respect of the land in question, respondent No.1 is directed to furnish the information as sought by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, in his letter in Dis.No.403, dated 10.09.2012, and receive the document that may be sent by the civil Court for registration without feeling bound by the purported prohibitory list, dated 17.02.2010, communicated by the District Collector, Kadapa.
          The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.5023 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

          ____________________________
                                                JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
22nd February 2013
DR

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.