HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.11439, 11440 and 11441 of 2014 Date: 02.07.2014 W.P.No.11439 of 2014 Between:
Shanagonda Laxmipathi S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 44 years, Occu:Carpenter, R/o.Door No.10-2-146/3, Vidyanagar, Karimnagar town, Karimnagar district. … Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents.
W.P.No.11440 of 2014 Between:
Kasarla Manga, W/o. Madhukar Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occu:Household, R/o. Door No.10-3-197, Vidyanagar, Karimnagar town, Karimnagar district. … Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents.
W.P.No.11441 of 2014 Between:
Vootkuri Vinatha w/o. Papireddy, aged 41 years, Occu:Household, R/o.Door No.2-10-826/A, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar town, Karimnagar district. … Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Stamps & Registration) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents.
The Court made the following :
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.11439, 11440 and 11441 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:
These three writ petitions are instituted by the petitioners aggrieved by the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not prohibiting registration of documents for conveyance of landed properties in Sy.No.1275 of Rekurthi Village of Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District, in spite of an order of injunction passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar in all three writ petitions, thereby respondents were restrained from alienating the suit schedule properties.
2. O.S.No.267, 268 and 269 of 207 were instituted in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar praying for grant of decree of specific performance of agreement of sale against the defendants in the suits. Plaintiffs filed I.A.Nos.1921, 1923 and 1925 of 2007, respectively, to grant an order of injunction not to alienate the suit schedule properties. On 07.12.2007, injunctions were granted in all these three suits. After the grant of injunction orders, petitioners submitted representations on 25.12.2007 and 18.02.2010 bringing to the notice of the registering authority that injunction orders were passed by the Senior Civil Judge and requesting him not to entertain any deed of conveyance. Subject matter of land is located in Sy.No.1275 of Rekurthi village of Karimnagar Mandal and District and total extent is Ac.3.10 guntas out of total extent of land Ac.8.13 guntas in the survey number. Complaint of the petitioners is that in spite of an order of injunction, the registering authority registered the deeds of conveyance on 09.01.2013 executed in favour of respondents 4 and 5 herein by the 3rd respondent in the suits. The said action of the registering authority is assailed and consequential direction is sought to the registering authority not to alienate any deed of conveyance connected to the suit schedule properties.
3. This Court, by order dated 16.4.2014, granted interim directions in all three writ petitions.
4. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 4 and 5 filed vacate petitions.
5. When the matters are taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for respondents agreed for disposal of the writ petitions finally.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once an order of injunction was granted by the competent Court, the registering authority cannot entertain any deed of conveyance concerning the said property, on which an order of injunction is passed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on provision in Standing Order No.219. The standing order reads as under:
“ S.O. 219. An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering officer against the registration of a document executed by such person affecting such property.
(b) If the A.P.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 Officer or served on the Registering Officer, the Registering Officer is estopped from going ahead with the registration.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Venkannagari Naveen Rao and another v.
[1]
Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Sangareddy and another . Learned counsel further contends that having come to know that respondents 4 and 5 have purchased the land to an extent of 2057 square yards in Sy.No.1275 of Rekurthi village of Karimnagar Mandal in Karimnagar district and deeds of conveyance were registered in favour of respondents 4 and 5, respondents 4 and 5 were impleaded as defendants in all three suits and they are also parties in three suits pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 submits that petitioners are no way concerned with the disputed property and the respondents 4 and 5 are bona fide purchasers. He further submits that extent of land in Sy.Nos.1275 is Ac.8.13 guntas, whereas the claim of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein is to the extent of Ac.3.10 guntas only and, therefore, even if the petitioners succeeding in the suits pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, their interests are sufficiently protected and, therefore, the petitioners cannot restrain the enjoyment of the properties purchased by the respondents 4 and 5 bonafidely.
9. The reading of Standing Order No.219 clearly discloses that whenever an order of injunction was granted by the competent authority imposing restraint from alienation of the property and such order is brought to the notice of the registering authority, the registering authority is estopped from going ahead with the registration.
10. As seen from the representations submitted by the petitioners on 25.12.2007 and 18.02.2010, the registering authority was informed of the injunction orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and, therefore, he had knowledge not to entertain any deed of conveyance. Considering the scope of entertainment of deed of conveyance, when an order of injunction was passed, this Court in Venkannagari Naveen Rao, held as under:
“ 5 . Once it emerges that an order of temporary injunction restraining a specific individual from executing sale deed or otherwise transferring the properties has been passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the question of the Sub-Registrar admitting the documents executed by the defendants for registration does not arise. For the injunction to be operative, it is not necessary that the Sub-Registrar must be a party to the suit, nor the purchasers. It is enough if the persons who are executing the documents are made as parties to the suit and to the Interlocutory applications.”
11. In the instant case also, when injunction order was in force deed of conveyance was registered on 09.01.2013 and the suits are still pending. Therefore, unless the injunction orders granted by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar are vacated or suits are disposed of finally, there cannot be any further alienation of deed of conveyance. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the deeds of conveyance were registered on 09.01.2013 in favour of respondents 4 and 5, by then the respondents 4 and 5 were not parties to the suit, at present petitioners are not praying to set aside or annul the said registration, but only seek that they should not further alienate, that would attract some more third party interest.
12. Having regard to the submissions made and in view of the provision contained in Standing Order 219 and the principle laid down by this Court in Venkannagari Naveen Rao, the action of the registering authority accepting the deeds of conveyance is held illegal. However, the registration, which is already made on 09.01.2013 in favour of respondents 4 and 5, shall not be disturbed and such registration shall abide the result of the suits pending before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Karimnagar. However, there shall not be further registration of deeds of conveyance and the respondents 4 and 5 also shall not further alienate the properties purchased by them in the suit scheduled properties until further orders are passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in Interlocutory Applications or in O.S.Nos. 267, 268 and 269 of 2007.
12. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Date: 02.07.2014 kkm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOs.11439, 11440 & 11441 of 2014 Date: 02.07.2014 kkm
[1] 2013 (1) ALT 41