1
In the court of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati
Present: Sri M.Rajamouli Sarma, IV Additional District Judge.
Thursday, the Ninth(9th) day of April, Two Thousand fifteen
A.S. No.113 /2012
Between:
Vunnam Chandrakala
.. Appellant
And:
1. The Sub Registrar, Renigunta, Sri Balaji Registration District,Holding its office at Renigunta.
2. The District Registrar, Sri Balaji Registration District,Holding its office at Tirupati
.. Respondents
Appeal suit preferred against the Judgment and decree passed by
Additional Senior Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati dt 04.06.2012 in
O.S.No.690 /2009
Between:
Vunnam Chandrakala .. Plaintiff
And:
1. The Sub Registrar, Renigunta, Sri Balaji Registration District,Holding its office at Renigunta.
2. The District Registrar, Sri Balaji Registration District,Holding its office at Tirupati
.. Defendants
2
This appeal suit coming on 23.02.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Galla Sudarsana Rao, Advocate for the appellant, and of Special Government Pleader for the respondents and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
Unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.690/2009 on the file of
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati filed this appeal against the
Judgment dt 04.06.2012, whereunder, her suit seeking direction to the defendants to register the sale deed dated 26.11.2005 executed in her favour is dismissed.
For the sake of convenience the parties in this judgment will be referred as per their status before the trial court.
2. Brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are as under:
One Chapala Anuradha is owner of the plaint schedule property namely
Plot No.36 land ad. measuring 600 square yards situated in Tiruchanur village accounts, Patta No.130, Paimash No.10, Sy.No.242,
Padmavathipuram Panchayat, 13th ward, Srinivapuram residential area,
Tirupati rural mandal, Balaji Registration District, Chittoor and she intended to sell the same and came in contact with the plaintiff for a consideration of for Rs.6,00,000/. In pursuance of the same, the said
Chapala Anuradha executed a sale deed dated 26.11.2005 in favour of plaintiff by receiving entire sale consideration. Plaintiff presented the sale deed dated 26.11.2005 for registration before the first defendant, but the first defendant without assigning any reason, refused to register the sale deed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred appeal No.15/2007
before the second defendant and the second defendant without considering
the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. Defendants refused to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the property belongs to charitable and endowment institution. Assumption of 3 the defendants that the plaint schedule property belongs to Religious
Endowment Institution is without any evidence. Plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the vendors of the plaintiff and their predecessors in title and no one claimed title and possession over the plaint schedule property for the past 100 years. There is no document to show that the plaint schedule property belong to any religious endowment institution. Both the defendants refused to register the document in favour of the plaintiff on the premise that the said registration is prohibited under section 22A (1) (c) of the Registration Act. There is no notification by the
State Government in official gazette declaring that registration of the documents pertaining to transfer of plaint schedule property is prohibited under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act. Defendants themselves presumed the said fact and refused to register the document in question.
Thus the defendants acted in violation of statutory duty imposed on them by refusing to register the document. Hence the suit for direction to the defendants to register the sale deed dated 26.11.2005 presented by the plaintiff.
3. First defendant filed written statement, and second defendant adopted the same.
a) Brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are as under:
b) The Administrative Officer, Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt,
Tirupati vide his letter Rc.No.B4/1399/2004 dated 27.11.2004 has furnished a list of landed properties belonging to the said mutt, with a request not to register alienations of the said lands without order of the government or the Commissioner Endowments Department, A.P.
Hyderabad. The Administrative Officer of the said Mutt in his letter
RC.B4/1595/04 dated 30.05.2005 has stated that the said Mutt owns an extent of Ac.132.30 cents in several survey numbers in Tiruchanur village including survey numbers 240 and 241 of Tiruchanur and requested the
Registering authorities not to allow any registrations in respect of Mutt 4 lands including survey numbers 240 and 241 of Tiruchanur. The
Commissioner and inspector general of Registration and Stamps,A.P.
Hyderabad through memo No.G1/12778/03 dated 26.4.2004 has instructed the registering authorities not to register the documents pertaining to Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt as it is an ecclesiastical matter, like wakf properties etc., Accordingly, the first defendant has kept the suit document dated 26.11.2005 pending basing on the above memo and finally passed refusal orders dated 22.09.2007, as per section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration (AP Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007) which prohibits Registration of Hindu Charitable and Religious Endowments
Properties that came into effect from 20.06.2007 and the reasons for refusal were stated in the said refusal orders. The Mahant Varu of the said mutt in his letter Rc.No.B4/918/07 dated 1.8.2008 has furnished another list of survey numbers with extent and requested the Registering authorities not to entertain registrations in respect of the said survey numbers. The second defendant dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff as per section 22
A (1)(C) of the Registration (AP Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007)
Act, which prohibits registration of Hindu Charitable Religious Endowment
Properties and also basing on the list furnished by the Commissioner,
Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad vide his letter in
Rc.No.N1/31838/2009 dt.28.7.2009 which consists list of properties belonging to the said Mutt. The Commissioner, Endowment Department,
A.P. Hyderabad is statutorily empowered to furnish the list as per section 22A (1)(C) of the Registration(AP Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007). Defendants have not violated any rules made under any statute and have acted as per the procedure.
c) According to section 22A (1)(C) of the Registration (AP
Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007) the property involving land claimed by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religions Institutions and Endowments
Act, 1987, is prohibited from alienation when such transaction is executed 5 by persons other than those statutorily empowered to do so. The
Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad vide his letter in
R.C.No.N1/ 31838/20098 dated 28.07.2009 has furnished list of properties belong to Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt and requested the second defendant who is appellate authority to ban registration of lands covered under the impugned documents without prior permission. The survey number mentioned in the suit document is also included in the said list. Hence the second defendant has dismissed the appeal. Section 22A (1)(C) of the
Registration(AP Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007) published in the
AP. Gazette Extraordinary on 20.6.2007 that came into force on the same day states that documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift,exchange or lease exceeding 10 years in respect of immovable property, owned by Religions and charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institution and endowments Act, 1987 executed by persons others than those statutorily empowered to do so. As it does not attract section 22
A(1)(C) of the said act, it is not necessary for the government to notify or publish the same in the official gazette as the plaint schedule property is not government land. Finally prayed to dismiss the suit.
d) On the basis of the above pleadings, Trial Court framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for registration of sale deed as prayed for ?
2. Whether the defendants are liable to register the sale deed?
3. To what relief?
e) To substantiate her case, plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.A.1 and A.2. In defence, the defendants examined second defendant namely District Registrar, Sri Balaji
Registration District, Tirupati V.Kiran Kumar as DW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.B.1 to B.6.
6
f) On consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, Trial Court dismissed the suit.
3. Assailing the said judgment, the present appeal is filed contending that though the documents were presented for registration on 26.11.2005 by which time, there was no Gazette or Amendment to the Registration Act, purposefully kept registration pending for more than two months and refused registration, that except Ex.B.1, other documents of the defendants are subsequent to the filing of the suit and that the trial court failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence and admissions of D.W.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.1 and came to erroneous conclusion and dismissed the suit, instead of decreeing the suit. Hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial court.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Point that arise for consideration is:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for registration of sale deed dated 26.11.2005 as prayed for ?
POINT:
6. In the light of evidence on record, it is to be seen whether the plaint schedule property belongs to Hathiramji Mutt and action of the defendants in refusing registration of the sale deed dated 26.11.2005 in favour of the plaintiff is justified.
7. Plaintiff as PW.1 has stated that one Chapala Anuradha was owner of the plaint schedule property and she intended to sell the plaint schedule property, came in contact with her, she agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/ and executed a sale deed dated 26.11.2005 in favour of plaintiff by receiving sale consideration and the said document was presented before the first defendant for registration and the first defendant without assigning any 7 reason, refused to register the same and intimated the same to her on 22.09.2007. She further stated that against the orders of refusal of first defendant, she preferred an appeal before the second defendant and the second defendant without considering the material on record, dismissed the appeal on 09.10.2009 on the ground that the plaint schedule property is prohibited for registration under 22(A)(1)(c) of Registration Act. She further stated that the plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of her vendors and their predecessors in title and no one claimed title and possession of the plaint schedule property for the past 100 years. Thus, the defendants acted in violation of statutory duty imposed on them by refusing to register the document and prayed to decree the suit.
8. Ex.A.1 is sale deed dated 26.11.2005 executed by one Chapala
Anuradha in favour of plaintiff conveying the plaint schedule property for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/, with endorsement of first defendant, refusing registration of sale deed. Ex.A.2 is order dated 09.10.2009 of the second defendant in appeal No.15/2007 filed by the plaintiff against orders of the first defendant whereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the first defendant.
9. Second defendant as DW.1 has stated that the Administrative
Officer, Sri Swami Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupati has furnished list of landed properties belong to the Mutt, with a request not to register alienations of the said lands without order of the Government or the Commissioner of
Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad. He further stated that on 30.05.2005 the Administrative Officer of the said mutt sent a letter stating that the mutt owns an extent of Ac.132.30 cents of land in S.Nos.240 and 241 of Tiruchanur village accounts and requested the registering authorities not to allow any registration in Mutt lands including the above said survey numbers. He further stated that the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P. Hyderabad through memo dated 8 26.04.2004 has instructed the Registering Authorities not to register the documents pertaining to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt as it is an ecclesiastical matter. Accordingly, the first defendant kept the sale deed dated 26.11.2005 pending basing on the above memo and finally passed orders on 22.09.2007 as per Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration (A.P.
Amendment) Act, 2007. He further stated that the second defendant dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff basing on the letter furnished by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad and that they have not violated any rules made under any statute and they have acted as per the procedure.
10. Ex.B.1 is copy of letter dated 27.11.2004 from the office of
Administrative Officer, Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt Tirupati addressed to the second defendant requesting to see that no registration of alienation of mutt lands is made at their office without orders of the government or the
Commissioner. Ex.B.2 is copy of letter dated 01.08.2008 form the office of
Mahanthvaru of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati addressed to the
Sub Registrar of Chandragiri, Tirupati rural, Tirupati urban, Renigunta and
Srikalahasti requesting that registration of Mutt lands should not be entertained by their offices. Ex.B.3 is letter dated 28.07.2009 from the
Commissioner, Endowments Department, to the District Registrar of Sri
Balaji Registration District, Tirupati and Kurnool requesting to ban registration of the lands without prior permission of the Commissioner,
Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh and showing the lands of
Tiruchanur and Tirupati of Chittoor District and Mandagiri of Kurnool
District. Ex.B.4 is copy of A.P.Gazette Part IVB, Extraordinary published by authority dated 08.06.2009. Ex.B.5 is another copy of letter dated 30.05.2005 from the office of Administrative Officer, Sri Swamy Hathiramji
Mutt, Tirupati to the Sub Registrar, Renigunta requesting not to allow any registration in Mutt lands including S.Nos.240 and 241 of Tiruchanur and showing the lands of Tiruchanur and other villages. Ex.B.6 is copy of memo dated 26.04.2004 from the Commissioner and Inspector General, 9
Registration and Stamps, A.P Hyderabad instructing the District Registrar,
Chittoor and Tirupati, to instruct the sub registrars concerned not to register the documents pertaining to the said mutt as it is an ecclesiastical matter like Wakf properties.
11. Trial court dismissed the suit by making the following observations.
1. That the documents filed by the defendants clearly and clinchingly goes to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt and that there were instructions since April, 2004 itself.
2. That to prove that the plaintiff and his vendors have got absolute right and title over the plaint schedule property, no document is placed before the court and also before the Sub Registrar or District Registrar.
3. That to Prove that the plaint schedule property not belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, no document was placed before the court by the plaintiff.
12. As seen from Ex.A.1, the plaintiff submitted Ex.A.1 sale deed to the first defendant for registration on 26.11.2005 and it was kept pending till 22.09.2007 i.e., more than 2 months and refused registration. Except endorsement on Ex.A.1 that the registration is refused, the ground on which registration of the Ex.A.1 is refused is not stated. In his endorsement the first defendant did not say that basing on the list of properties furnished by the officials of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt and the commissioner Endowments Department, he refused registration. Strangely, the first defendant did not come into box to speak about the same, thereby valuable right of plaintiff to cross examine first defendant to know the reason for refusal of registration of sale deed is lost. As seen from Ex.A.2 the second defendant has also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the plaint schedule property belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt and registration of which is banned U/s.22A(1)(c)of the Registration Act.
10
13. In Ex.B.1 though the Administrative officer of Sri Swamy
Hathiramji Mutt stated that the list of landed property particulars are herewith enclosed, there is no such list. Thus, Exs.B.1 is of no use to say that the plaint schedule property belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt.
Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.3 are much subsequent to Ex.A.1 sale deed In Ex.B.6 it is simply stated that not to register the document pertaining to the said mutt, but there are no details of lands, its extents and location.
14. Except Ex.B.5 letter from the Administrative Officer, Sri Swamy
Hathiramji Mutt Tirupati together with list of lands said to have held by them and Ex.B.3 letter from the Commissioner, Endowments Department, to the Registrars requesting not to register the lands of Sri Swamy
Hathiramji Mutt, no other document is produced by the defendants to say that the plaint schedule property belong to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt.
Simply basing on the letter under Ex.B.5 of the Administrative Officer, Sri
Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, the first defendant refused registration of Ex.A.1 sale deed presented by the plaintiff. Similarly, basing on Ex.B.3 letter from
Commissioner of Endowments Department, the second defendant confirmed the order of the first defendant and dismissed the appeal.
15. Ex.A.1 sale deed is presented by the plaintiff for registration of plaint schedule property. If there is any objection for the registration of the said sale deed, the duty of the Registrar is to hold an enquiry with regard to title of the property and then decide whether to register the sale deed or not to register. But here in this case as stated above, the first defendant did not conduct any enquiry and he simply refused to register the sale deed basing on section 22A(1)(c)of the Registration Act stating that the plaint schedule property belong to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt,
Tirupati. Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt people are not parties to this suit. If really the property belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, they ought to have impleaded and contested the suit saying that the plaint schedule 11 properties belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt. Sri Swamy Hathiramji
Mutt people not even appeared before the first defendant when the sale deed is presented and oppose. They have also not appeared before the second defendant when the appeal is filed.
16. As stated above, basing on these letters written by the
Administrative Officer, Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, the defendants presumed that the plaint schedule properties belongs to Sri Swamy
Hathiramji Mutt and refused registration.
17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that in the absence of notification under section 22A(2)of the Registration Act, it is not open to Endowments Department to communicate such list by way of a letter and trace power to do so to section 22A(1)(c).
In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in 2013(5)
ALD 785 in Pasuparthi Jayaram and others Vs.Government of Andhra
Pradesh and others.
As seen from the said judgment, brief facts of the case are as under :
The Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., issued proceedings dated 19.04.2010 to various Registration authorities in
Chittoor District indicating the particulars of immovable properties allegedly belonging to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati and Sri Bugga
Mutt, Tirupati requesting the Registration Authorities desist from entertaining registration of documents in connection with these properties.
The communication was ostensibly issued under Section22A(1(c) of the
Registration Act, 1908. The complaint of the petitioners is that basing on this communication, the Joint Sub RegistrarI, Tirupati refused to receive the documents presented by them in respect of their lands in S.No.242/B of
Tirupati village, Tirupati urban mandal, Chittoor District, as the said lands 12 were indicated in the list appended to the proceedings dated 19.04.2010 as properties of Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt , Tirupati.
Considering section 22A(1)(c), their Lordships held that a bare reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the prohibition contemplated by clause (c) of sub section (1) of Section 22A of the Act, 1908 relates to the status of the executant of the document relating to properties owned by Religious/Charitable/Endowment/Wakf Institutions. Registration of documents executed by other than those statutorily empowered to do so in respect of such properties is prohibited thereunder. The said provision pre supposes the title of the institution over the land and merely prohibits registration of documents executed by those without authority. Therefore, the only list that could be communicated under this provision would be the list of those designated persons who have power and authority to execute documents on behalf of the religious/ Charitable/ Endowment/Wakf institutions and not a list of the properties belonging to such institutions.
Their Lordships further held that the communication addressed by the Commissioner of the Endowments Department of the State, therefore proceeds on a complete misconception and misunderstand of the scope of the above provision. In the event the Religious /Charitable /Endowment / Wakf institutions seeks to assert any right over a property, prohibition as to registration of documents relating to such property can operate only if a notification is issued under section 22A(2) of the Act of 1908 in connection with section 22A(1)(e)thereof.
Their Lordships further held that in the absence of a notification under Section 22A(2), it is not open to the Endowments Department to communicate a list of properties allegedly owned by religious institution by way of a letter and trace the power todo so to section 22A(1)(c) of the Act of 1908.
18. The facts of the case law are similar to the facts on hand.
Here in this case also no documentary evidence is produced by the defendants to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to Sri Swamy
Hathiramji Mutt, except the letter written by Commissioner, Endowments 13
Department to the District Registrar Chittoor and Tirupati requesting to instruct all the Sub Registrars working under their control not to entertain registration of documents with regard to the lands mentioned in the list.
Admittedly, no notification was issued by the State government prohibiting the registration of documents presented in respect of the plaint schedule property as required under section 22A(2) of Registration Act, 1908.
19. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the defendants without there being any evidence on record presumed that the plaint schedule properties belongs to Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt and refused registration. Trial court did not consider this aspect and dismissed the suit which is not correct. The plaintiff as a purchaser of plaint schedule property is entitled to have registration of the sale deed and the defendants are bound to entertain and register the sale deed dated 26.11.2005. Accordingly, point is answered.
20. In the result, appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the trial court in O.S.No.690/2009 dated 04.06.2012 and the suit in
O.S.No.690/2009 is decreed directing the defendants to register the sale
deed dated 26.11.2005 presented by the plaintiff for registration in respect of the plaint schedule property. In the circumstances of the case, each party do bear their costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of April, 2015.
Sd/M.Rajamouli Sarma
IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. //true copy// 14
Fair Judgment in
A.S.No.113 of 2012
Dated:09.04.2015.
15 averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are as under: One Chapala
Anuradha is owner of the plaint schedule property namely Plot of land ad.
measuring 600 square yards situated in Tiruchanur village accounts, Patta
No.130, Paimash No.10, Sy.No.242, Padmavathipuram Panchayat, 13th ward, Srinivapuram residential area, Tirupati rural mandal, Balaji
Registration District, Chittoor and came in contact with the plaintiff. After negotiations, the said Chapala Anuradha agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a consideration of for Rs.6,00,000/. In pursuance of the said negotiations the said Chapala Anuradha executed a sale deed dated 26.11.2005 in favour of the plaintiff and received consideration mentioned therein. Plaintiff presented the sale deed dated 26.11.2005 for registration before the first defendant, but the first defendant without assigning any reason, refused to register the sale deed.
Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred appeal No.15/2007 before the second defendant and the second defendant without considering the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal. Defendants refused to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the property belongs to charitable and endowment institution. Assumption of the defendants that the plaint schedule property belongs to Religious
Endowment Institution is without any evidence. Plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the vendors of the plaintiff and their predecessors in title and no one claimed title and possession over the plaint schedule property for the past 100 years. There is no document to show that the plaint schedule property belong to any religious endowment institution. Both the defendants refused to register the document in favour of the plaintiff on the premise that the said registration is prohibited under section 22A (1) (c) of the Registration Act. There is no notification by the
State Government in official gazette declaring that registration of the documents pertaining to transfer of plaint schedule property are prohibited 16 under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act. Defendants themselves presumed the said fact and rejected to register the document in question.
Thus the defendants acted in violation of statutory duty imposed on them by refusing to register the document. Hence the suit for direction to the defendants to register the sale deed dated 26.11.2005 prayed by the plaintiff.
3. First defendant filed written statement, and second defendant adopted the same.
a) Brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are as under:
b) Administrative Officer, Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupati vide his letter Rc.No.B4/1399/2004 dated 27.11.2004 has furnished a list of landed properties belonging to the said mutt, with a request not to register alienation of the said lands without order of the government or the
Commissioner Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad. Again the said
Administrative Officer of the said Mutt in his letter RC.B4/1595/04 dated 30.05.2005 has stated that the said Mutt owns an extent of Ac.132.30 cents in several survey numbers in Tiruchanur village including survey numbers 240 and 241 of Tiruchanur and requested the Registering authorities not to allow any registrations in respect of Mutt lands including survey numbers 240 and 241 of Tiruchanur. Commissioner and inspector general of Registration and Stamps,A.P. Hyderabad through memo
No.G1/12778/03 dated 26.4.2004 has instructed the registering authorities not to register the document pertaining to Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt as it is an ecclesiastical matter, like wakf properties etc., Accordingly, the first defendant has kept the suit document dated 26.11.2005 pending basing on the above memo and finally passed refusal orders dated 22.09.2007, as per section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration (AP Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007) which prohibits Registration of Hindu Charitable and Religious 17
Endowments Properties that came into effect from 20.06.2007 and the reasons for refusal were stated in the said refusal orders. Mahant Varu of the said mutt in his letter Rc.No.B4/918/07 dated 1.8.2008 has furnished another list of survey numbers with extent and requested the Registering authorities not to entertain registrations in respect of the said survey numbers. Second defendant dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff as per section 22A (1)(C) of the Registration (AP Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007) Act, which prohibits registration of Hindu Charitable
Religious Endowment Properties and also basing on the list furnished by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad vide his letter in Rc.No.N1/31838/2009 dt.28.7.2009 which consists list of properties belonging to the said Mutt. Commissioner, Endowment Department, A.P.
Hyderabad is statutorily empowered to furnish the list as per section 22A (1)(C) of the Registration (AP Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007).
Defendants have not violated any rules made under any statute and have acted as per the procedure.
c) According to section 22A (1)(C) of the Registration (AP
Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007) the property involved land claimed by Religious and Charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religions Institutions and Endowments
Act, 1987, is prohibited from alienation when such transaction is executed by persons other than those statutorily empowered todo so. Commissioner,
Endowments Department, A.P. Hyderabad vide his letter in
R.C.No.N1/31838/20098 dated 28.07.2009 has furnished list of properties belong to Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt and requested the second defendant who is appellate authority to ban registration of lands covered under the impugned documents without prior permission. The survey number mentioned in the suit document is also included in the said list. Hence the second defendant has dismissed the appeal. 22A (1)(C) of the Registration (AP Amendment )Act, 2007 (Act.19 of 2007) published in the A/P./ 18
Gazette Extraordinary on 20.6.2007 that came into force on the same day states that documents relating to transfer of property by way of sale, agreement of sale, gift,exchange or lease exceeding 10 years in respect of immovable property, owned by Religions and charitable Endowments falling under the purview of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institution and endowments Act, 1987 executed by persons others than those statutorily empowered todo so. As it does not attract section 22
A(1)(e) of the said act, it is not necessary for the government to notify or publish the same in the official gazette as the plaint schedule property is government land. Finally prayed to dismiss the suit.
d) On the basis of the above pleadings, Trial Court framed the following issues for trial:
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for registration of sale deed as prayed for ?
5. Whether the defendants are liable to register the sale deed?
6. To what relief?
e) To substantiate her case, plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.A.1 and A.2. In defence, the District
Registrar, Sri Balaji Registration District, Tirupati namely V.Kiran Kumar was examined as DW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.B.1 to B.6.
f) On consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, Trial Court dismissed the suit.
3. Assailing the said judgment, the present appeal is filed contending that though the documents were presented for registration on 26.11.2005 by which time, there was no Gazette or Amendment to the Registration Act, purposefully kept pending for registration for two years and refused for registration, that the documents of the defendants are subsequent to the filing of the suit and Ex.B.1 is much prior to filing of the suit and that the 19 trial court erroneously failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence and admissions of D.W.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.1 and came to erroneous conclusion and dismissed the suit, instead of decreeing the suit. Hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial court.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Point that arise for consideration is:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for registration of sale deed dated 26.11.2005 as prayed for ?
POINT :
6. In order to prove her title and possession over the plaint schedule properties as on the date of suit, plaintiff relied upon her evidence, evidence of her father PW.2 and the contents of documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. Plaintiff as PW.1 and her father as PW.2 stated that originally plaint schedule properties are part of family properties of
Gunda Reddy (father of PW.2) and through partition list dated 15.02.1975, said Gunda Reddy and his sons namely, PW.2 and his brothers partitioned all the family properties and plaint schedule property shown as “D” schedule in the partition list, fell to the share of PW.2 among other properties. Pws.1 and 2 further stated that during the marriage of
PW.1,PW.2 promised to settle some property in her name towards 20
Pasupukumkuma and in pursuance of the said promise, PW.2 settled the plaint schedule properties in favour of PW.1. Thus PW.1 became owner of plaint schedule properties and in possession of the same.
7. Ex.A.5 is said to be partition list dated 15.02.1975 executed in between Gunda Reddy (father of PW.2) and his sons namely Vasudeva
Reddy, Doraswamy Reddy, PW.2 and daughter of Gunda Reddy namely
Parvathamma stating, that A to E schedule properties were agreed to be taken by them respectively and “D” schedule property said to have allotted to PW.2. First 2 pages of Ex.A.5 are on NonJudicial Stamp papers, containing the signatures of Gunda Reddy, Vasudeva Reddy, Doraswamy
Reddy and PW.2. First page and second page are in different hand writings.
Pages 3 to 9 are xerox copies of original pages and they contain signatures of Gunda Reddy, Vasudeva Reddy and Doraswamy Reddy. There are no signatures of PW.2 and Parvathamma daughter of Gunda Reddy. Name of the scribe and attestors of Ex.A.5 partition list and their signatures are not there.
8. PW.1 admitted that Ex.A.5 partition list is xerox copy and stating that the original is with 2nd defendant, but no steps were taken by
PW.1 to get the original of Ex.A.5 is produced before the court. Admittedly, total extent in S.No.27/2 item No.1 of plaint schedule property is admeasuring Ac.1.16 cents. According to Pws.1 and 2, PW.2 and his father
Gunda Reddy sold Ac.0.89 cents of land in S.No.27/2 under a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1995 to one Venkatrami Reddy under original of
Ex.A.4 sale deed and remaining Ac.0.27 cents of land is item No.1 of pliant schedule property which was gifted by PW.2 in favour of PW.1 under
Ex.A.1 along with item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties. Ex. A.1is
Gift settlement deed dated 19.05.2008 executed by PW.2 in favour of PW.1 gifting plaint schedule items 1 and 2 properties in favour of PW.1. Ex.A.2 21 and A.3 are reply notices got issued by plaintiff through her advocate to defendants 1 and 2 before filing the suit and returned notice.
9. Though PW.1 has stated that since the date of Ex.A.5 partition list, PW.2 was cultivating the plaint schedule property and in the year 1996,
PW.2 executed a settlement deed in her favour and since then she is cultivating the said land, no such document is filed to prove the same. The settlement deed said to have executed by PW.2 in favour of PW.1 in the year 1996 i.e. other than Ex.A.1 not filed before the court.
10. DW.2 has stated that his grandfather Gunda Reddy and his three sons namely Vasudeva Reddy, Doraswamy Reddy, Bhakthavatsala
Reddy and daughter Parvathamma partitioned their joint family properties in the year 1975 and plaint schedule property item No.1 namely Ac.0.27 cents out of Ac.1.16 cents in S.No.27/2 was in possession and enjoyment of his father Vasudeva Reddy and remaining extent of Ac.0.89 cents was in possession of PW.2 and revenue authorities sub divided S.No.27/2 under
ROR proceedings and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of his father for an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in S.No. 27/2B under new patta
No.72 and his father's name was also mutated in the relevant record. His further evidence is that PW.2 sold his share of Ac.089 cents in S.No.27/2 and some other properties to one Venkatrami Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 06.11.1995.
11. His further evidence is that they are three brothers namely himself, Prasannakumar Reddy and Rammohan Reddy and they have partitioned the properties of their father Vasudeva Reddy under a registered partition deed dated 14.11.2006 and as per the partition Ac.0.27 cents in S.No.27/2 and some other properties fell to his share and PW.2 is attestor of the said registered partition deed. His further evidence is that after partition, revenue authorities recognized his right, title and possession and issued pattadar passbook and title deed for an extent of 22
Ac.0.27 cents in S.No.27/2B (i.e. Plaint schedule item No.1) and some other properties in his favour under new patta No.123. He sold an extent of
Ac.0.27 cents in S.No.27/2B and some other properties to the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 26.12.2008 and delivered possession and since then first defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. His further evidence is, that the land in
S.No.8/1A, 8/1B, 8/2A and 8/2B existing well, well mound, bari channel etc.,were jointly sold by himself and his brothers Prasannakumar Reddy,
Rammohan Reddy, PW.2, and Ramamurthy and Madanmohan Reddy sons of Doraswamy Reddy to one Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 20.09.2010 and delivered possession. His further evidence is that PW.2 created settlement deed Ex.A.1 in favour of PW.1 to grab the properties for their wrongful gain.
12. Ex.B.1 is certified copy of registered partition deed dated 14.11.2006 in between Vasudeva Reddy and his sons Jagadeeswara
Reddy,(defendant No.2) Prasanna Kumar Reddy and Rammohan Reddy.
As per “B” schedule of Ex.B.1, the land in S.No.27/2B to an extent of
Ac.0.27 cents besides other properties were fell to the share of
Jagadeeswara Reddy (Defendant No.2) and PW.2 signed Ex.B.1 as first attestor. Ex.B.2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 26.12.2008 executed by DW.2 in favour of first defendant conveying where under
Ac.1.18 cents in S.No.24/1, Ac.0.54 cents in S.No.27/1 and Ac.0.27 cents in
S.No.27/2B situated at Kotramangalam village for a consideration of
Rs.71,64,000/. Ex.B.3 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 20.09.2010 executed by DW.2 and his other brothers along with sons of
Doraswamy Reddy and PW.2 in favour of Vijayabhaskar Reddy (DW.3) son of Munireddy conveying whereunder the land in S.No.8/1A, 8/1B, 8/2A and 8/2B to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents for a consideration of Rs.2,10,000/.
23
13. D.W.1 is authorized signatory of first defendant whose evidences is about the purchase of property by first defendant from DW.2 under original of Ex.B.2 sale deed. DW.3 is purchaser of properties from
DW.2 and his brothers, PW.2 and sons of Doraswamy Reddy under original of Ex.B.3 sale deed. He spoke about his purchase of plaint schedule item
No.2 Properties. Ex.B.5 is pattadar passbook issued in the name of
Vasudeva Reddy father of DW.2 showing his agricultural holding wherein the land in S.No.27/2B to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents were shown as belongs to Vasudeva Reddy, father of DW.2.
14. As stated above, the plaintiff failed to prove that the plaint schedule property items 1 and 2 fell to the share of his father during the partition among her grand father Gunda Reddy, her father PW.2 and his brothers namely Vasudeva Reddy, Doraswamy Reddy and his sister
Parvathamma and since the date of partition in the year 1975, PW.2 is in possession of plaint schedule property and in the year 1996 he executed a settlement deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule items 1 and 2 properties and in the year 2008 he executed registered settlement deed under Ex.A.1 and that she is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule items 1 and 2 properties.
15. On the other hand, defendants 1 and 2 able to prove that in a partition among DW.2 and his brothers, plaint schedule Item No.1 property was fell to the share of DW.2 and he sold the same and other properties to first defendant under original of Ex.B.2 sale deed and item No.2 of plaint schedule property was jointly sold by DW.2, his brothers, PW.2 and sons of
Doraswamy Reddy to DW.3 under original of Ex.B.3 sale deed. Thus the plaintiff failed to prove her possession over plaint schedule items 1 and 2 properties as on the date oft suit and interference of the defendants with her possession. Trial court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and there are no grounds to interfere with 24 the judgment of the trial court and the same needs to be confirmed.
Accordingly, the point is answered.
16. In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the Trial Court.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected
and pronounced by me in Open court, this the 31st day of December, 2014.
Sd/M.Rajamouli Sarma IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati.
//true copy//