IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM
Present: Smt. Siripurapu Sreedevi, VI Additional Senior Civil Judge FAC III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge Visakhapatnam
Monday, this the 19th day of January 2015
O.S. 1368/2005
Between:- Chilukuri Pattabhi Rama Rao, S/o. Veera Raghava Rao, Hindu, aged 55 yeaers, resident of Flat No.303, Kirlampudi Arcade, Visakhapatnam-2. … Plaintiff And: 1)Smt. Vuppala Lakshmi Devi, wife of Venkata Ramana Murthy, Hindu, aged 78 years, House hold duties, residing at Door No.31-32-51/1, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-20. (DIED on 30.05.2011) 2)The Sub Registrar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
3)The District Registrar, Visakhapatnam-1.
4)The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam.
5)The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 6)Sri Devineni Ramesh Kumar, s/o. D.r. Narayanarao, Hindu, aged 39 year, Alankar Gardens, Purushothampuram, Visakhapatnam. (D.6 added as per orders in IA 598/06 dt. 3.8.07).
7)Smt. Kancharla Achutamba, w/o. Durga Rao, Hindu, aged 65 years, residing at D.No.1-4-49, Gandhi Nagar, Income Tax street, Anakapalle, Visakapatnam District. 8)Vuppala Anandam, s/o. Late Venkata Ramana Murthy, Hindu, aged 63 years, R/at. D.No.31-32-51/2, Leela Mahal Road, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. 9)Vuppala Lakshmana Murthy, S/o. Late Venkata Ramana Murthy, Hindu, aged 59 years, residing at Door No.53-16-55, Digguvari Street, Maddilapalem, Behind Automotive Manufacturers Pvt Ltd., Viskhapatnam. 10)Yelamarthi Manikyam, W/o. Pydisetty (Asst. Professor, Chemical Engineer), Hindu, aged 54 years, National Institute of Technology, Opp. College Press, Warangal. (D.1 died on 30.5.11 intestate leaving behind her the defendants 7 to 10 as her legal heirs. So the legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant are added as defendants 7 to 10 as per orders in IA 112/2011 dt.18.10.11) … Defendants 2
This suit coming on 18.12.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Bevara Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri L.Satyanarayana, Advocate for D.1 & D.8, Sri D.Dakshina Murthy,Advocate for D.6, Sri P.S.Kumar, Advocate for Defendant No.7,Sri V.S.N.P. Advocate for D.9, Assistant Government Pleader for defendant Nos.2,3,4 & 5 and having stood over till this day for consideration and this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01.The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 10 herein after referred to as D.1 to D.10 seeking the relief of declaration that the notice issued by D.2 dt.13.02.03 by refusing to register the sale deed executed by D.1 is illegal, void and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing
D.2 to register the sale deed dt.02.02.2002 executed in favour of plaintiff.
Initially the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 5. Defendant
No.6 was brought on record as per the orders in IA 598/06 dt. 3.8.07. D.7 to
D.10 were brought on record after demise of D.1 as per the orders in IA 112/2011 dt.18.10.11. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:
The plaintiff purchased item nos. 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property covered by survey nos.2,4,5,6,8 and 10, T.D.patta No.3050 situated at
Purushothapuram Agraharam Village from the owner ie. D.1 on 02.02.2002 by paying the entire sale consideration and the transaction was engrossed on the requisite stamp and the property was delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and D.1 submitted the sale deed on the same day for registration to Sub
Registrar/ D.2. The Vendee of the sale deed/ D.1 filed civil suit in OS 79/75 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge's Court claiming right over the schedule property and the court after examining the evidence engrossed sale deed by collecting court fee of Rs.3140/-. Therefore, the document obtained statutory value and has conveyed full right on the vendee/ D.1.
D.2 instead of registering the sale deed kept it pending for more than 13 months and issued a letter dt. 10.03.2003 stating that the schedule property situated at purushothamapuram village is prohibited for registration by virtue of G.O.Ms. No.511 Revenue (regn.-1) dt.28.7.2000 and refused to register the same under section 22 A of registration Act. The total value of the 3 document is wrongly noted in the said notice. The reasons assigned in the notice are untenable. The property is situated at Purushothamapuram
Agraharam but not at Purushothamapuram village. D.2 did not mention the extent for which there is a prohibition under section 22-A of Registration Act.
There is a prohibition for only Ac.0.36 cents of land covered by S.No.4 situated at Purushothamapuram village.
The plaintiff preferred an appeal in OA 2/2003 to the District
Registrar / D.3 under section 72 of Registration Act and D.3 without verifying the true facts dismissed the appeal on 17.7.03 confirming the orders passed by
D.2. The plaintiff preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.
along with one Smt. Jaladi Mahalaksmi Eswaramma who purchased Ac.3.00 cents of land from D.1 on dt. 2.2.2002, whose registration was also refused by
D.2 & D.3. The case of plaintiff is similar to the case of Smt. Jaladi
Mahalaksmi Eswaramma. The writ petition filed by the plaintiff was numbered as W.P.2375/2003 and the Hon'ble High Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to file writ petition as there is a civil remedy. Then the plaintiff and one Smt. Jaladi Mahalaksmi Eswaramma preferred an appeal against the orders passed by Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.428/05 and the Hon'ble
Division Bench also held that writ Appeal is not maintainable while directing the plaintiff to prefer civil suit. Again the plaintiff and Jaladi Mahalaksmi
Eswaramma preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme court and the Hon'ble
Supreme court confirmed the orders passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the
Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and disposed of the Special Leave Petition by
excluding the period of limitation for filing the suit. The orders in special leave petition were passed on 12.9.2005 and the plaintiff received the copy on 10.10.05. So no separate application is necessary for condonation of delay.
Originally notification under section 2(A) of Inams Assessment Act 1955 was issued on 15.5.1957 in Visakhapatnam District Gazette where under the lands covered by S.Nos. 4,5 and 6 of Purushothapuram Agraharam were shown as private lands. The village Purushothapuram and Purushothapuram 4
Agraharam are different and separate villages. The lands in Purushothapuram village are covered by T.D. No.1272 and 1273 which belong to Simhachalam
Devasthanam. Whereas the lands situated in Purushothapuram Agraharam are covered by T.D. No.3050. As per the decision published in District Gazette dt.13.9.1962, the land covered by survey no.4 in T.D. No. 3050 of
Purushothapuram Agraharam is a private land. The Gazette notification was issued by D.4 under section 22A of Registration Act which was referred in para 3 of the notice issued by D.2 in R.C. No.1279/2002/F3 dt.2.4.2002. D.2 was instructed not to entertain any registration in Purushothapuram Agraharam till the enquiries are completed. Consequently D.3 who is a Collector under
Stamp Act issued a memo 1340/G2/47-A/2002 dt.23.12.02 and had also issued orders to take action as per the orders of the District Collector. So the notice issued by D.2 on 10.3.03 is illegal.
Even as per the notice of D.4, there is a prohibition of registration in respect of the land covered by survey no.4 of Purushothapuram to an extent of Ac.0.36 cents. The M.R.O, Pendurthi issued a letter dt 16.11.04 stating that an enquiry was already completed and survey nos.2,4,5,6,8 & 12 of
Purushothapuram Agraharam were not held by any institution. D.5 is shown as a proforma party
D.1 died on 30.5.11 leaving behind him defendants 7 to 10 as her legal heirs and they were brought on record as per the orders in IA 112/2011 dt.18.10.11. Hence the suit.
02.D.1 filed written statement praying the court to dismiss the suit by denying the averments made in the plaint specifically while admitting that D.1 is the owner of the property consisting of 26.11 cents in TD patta No.3060 and 1272 of Purushothapuram Agraharam Village of Pendurthy Mandal having acquired the same by way of decree in OS 79/75 dt.11.05.1989.
It is mainly contended that the property was not delivered to D.1 and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.in 5
A.S.1801/89. The plaintiff brought into existence the alleged sale deed
dt.2.2.2002 without the knowledge of D.1 taking advantage of the old age of
D.1 and her husband. D.1 does not know that the Registrar kept the sale deed pending and issued a letter to the plaintiff stating that there is a prohibition for registration of schedule property basing on which the plaintiff preferred appeals before D.3 and again preferred writ petitions on the file of
Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and then to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The plaintiff
filed the suit to grab the schedule property of D.1. D.1 never entered into any agreement with the plaintiff to sell the schedule property or any part of her land of Ac.26.11 cents.
Infact D.1 entered into an agreement on 7.10.96 to sell her property to one J.Bhava Narayana and 5 others and as the purchasers violated the agreement, the said agreement dt. 7.10.96 is no longer valid and enforceable. D.1 will take steps to protect her property by rescinding the contract. D.1 sold Ac.2.00 cents of land abutting Visakhapatnam to Pendurthi road to Smt. Varri Narayanamma under different agreements to sell @ Rs.one lakh each and received consideration of Rs.90,000/- under each agreement to sell. Since D.1 already sold Ac.2.00 (Ac.1.00 + 1.00) she cannot sell the same land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought into existence the alleged sale deed without the consent of D.1 to enrich himself . The schedule attached to the alleged sale deed is not correct and it is invented for the purpose of the alleged document. The plaintiff obtained the signatures on the alleged document without explaining the contents and nature of the document by playing fraud on the pretext that her signatures are necessary to clear the dispute with government. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and D.1.
03.D.2 filed written statement praying the court to dismiss the suit by denying the averments made in the plaint specifically and the brief contents of it are as follows:
D.2 refused to register the sale deed dt.2.2.2002 in respect of
Ac.3.00 cents of land covered by survey nos.4,5 and 6 vide patta No.3050 in 6 the village Purushothapuram (Agraharam) of Gopalapatnam. The document is kept pending for verification as to whether the said land in the said survey number is covered by Section 22A of Registration Act.
The Sub Registrar is empowered to refuse registration of documents pertaining to the properties covered by survey numbers notified by the government through its District Collector which are against public policy.
The government has notified in G.O.No.509 Revenue (Registration
I) dt.28.7.2000 prohibiting registration of documents pertaining to the properties covered by survey numbers in Purushothapuram village and page 1 of the GO shows that the land in Survey No.4 consisting an extent of Ac.0.36 cents as Inam dry land and the alienation of the same is opposed to public policy. Accordingly D.2 refused to register the sale deed as per it's order dt.13.2.03. D.2 admits that the plaintiff preferred an appeal in OA 2/2003 to the District Registrar and writ petition 2375/2003 on the file of Hon'ble High
Court of A.P and writ appeal No.428/2005.
D.2 also admits that the plaintiff preferred Special Leave Petition
before apex court. D.2 further contended that for filing suit under section 77 of
the Act the period of limitation is 30 days. After excluding the period during which the plaintiff had been pursuing the remedy at Hon'ble High Court and
Supreme Court, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 22.04.2005. IT appears the suit was filed on 8.11.05 i.e. after stipulated time. Hence the suit is barred by time.
D.2 admits the presentation of document before the Sub Registrar relating to Ac.3.0-0cents of land in survey No.4 TD No.3050 for an amount of
Rs7,23,496/- on 2.2.2002. It is lastly contended that the proceedings dt.
23.12.2002 are valid and that they do not warrant any interference.
D.3 to D.5 fled memo adopting the contents of the written statement filed by D.2.
7
04.D.6 filed written statement praying the court to dismiss the suit by denying the averments made in the plaint specifically and the brief case of D.6 is as follows:
D.6 came to know that D.1sold away the schedule property consisting Ac.3.00 cents. Immediately D.6 telegraphed on 7.2.02 by demanding the plaintiff and D.1 to stop entering into any transaction. Later
D.6 submitted objections before SRO, Gopalapatnam by placing documents of his title, etc. D.1 wrongly transacted with the plaintiff. The property was never in possession of D.1 and it is in possession of D.6. Therefore, D.6 filed IA 598/06 under order 1 R.10 CPC and the same was allowed on 3.8.07. The matters are not finally concluded and they are pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the petition for special leave to appeal (Civil)
No.12078/2006. The Hon'ble Apex court granted stay and it is in force. Many appeals are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. D.1 tried to alienate the property to plaintiff. D6 is in possession of Ac.261.19 cents in survey Nos.
1 to 14 of Purushothapuram village. In AS 1652/89 in CMP 3286/02 the
Hon'ble High Court granted interim injunction upon D.1 from alienating any
part of the land in TD No.3050 of Pendurthi Mandal.
The suit in OS 79/75 did not reach it's finality and the orders, decree and judgments are challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The schedule property is an indivisible property
because of it's nature and fertility. The plaintiffs alleged purchase led to this lengthy litigation. Infact D.1 is aware of her limitations in this matter but still indulged in this transaction. The certificate issued by MRO cannot be looked into. If D.1 is permitted to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff, it would further complicate the litigation in OS 79/75. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief as D.1 is not the absolute owner of the property. As D.1 is not in possession of the property, she is not the title holder of the property.
8
05.D.7 filed written statement praying the court to dismiss the suit by denying the averments made in the plaint specifically and the brief case of D.6 is as follows:
D.7 adopts the written statement of D.1 to the extent of which it is in conformity with the stand taken by D.7. D.1 executed a kararunama agreement in favour of D.7 and her husband by giving 1/4th share from out of her 1/10th share in the entire land of 254 acres situated in purushotapuram agraharam on 10.1.68. So D.7 and her husband got 1/4th share i.e. 1/40th share in the entire land of 254 acres or 1/4th share in Ac.26.11 cents. D.1 had no right of alienation. D.7 is taking steps for realizing her share acquired through kararunama agreement. D.7 was not served with suit summons or neat copy of plaint. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit against D.2 to D.5 is not maintainable as no notice was issued under section 80 of CPC before filing of the suit. The suit for declaration without prayer for specific performance is not maintainable.
08.D.8 filed written statement praying the court to dismiss the suit by denying the averments made in the plaint specifically the suit while admitting that D.1 is the owner of Ac.26.79 cents of dray land and the brief case of D.8 is as follows:
It is mainly contended that D.1 has not executed the alleged sale deed and no consideration was paid. The alleged sale deed was brought into existence by the plaintiff and his henchmen. The recitals of the alleged sale deed will establish the fraud played by the plaintiff against D.1 to grab her property. The litigation regarding the property is not yet finalized and it is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. D.8 has to obtain possession, but the plaintiff got it mentioned in the alleged document that D.8 handed over possession to him. The government is also claiming right and title over the property. D.8 never entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. D.8 further reiterated the contents of written statement filed by D.1 and to avoid repetition the same are not discussed in detail. D.8 lastly contended that D.1 executed a 9 registered will dt.31.12.10 bequeathing her properties including the suit schedule property in favour of D.8 and his two sons viz. Uppalla Venkata
Ramana Murthy and Uppala Venkata Reddy and as such D.8 and his two sons are the only persons entitled to claim rights regarding the estate of the deceased D.1 and the other defendants have nothing to do with the same. The sons of D.8 are also proper and necessary parties. The suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties.
D.9 remained exparte as per the docket order dt.22.2.12. D.10 remained exparte as per the docket order dt. 9.4.12.
09.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my learned predecessor for trial.
1) Whether the notice issued by the 2nd defendant dated13.2.2003 forwarded dated10.3.2003 is void and unenforceable as prayed for?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the second defendant to register the sale deed executed by the first defendant?
3) To what relief?
Based on the above pleadings, the following additional issues are framed as this court feels that no prejudice would be caused to both parties to the proceedings as they have let in evidence on those lines.
Additional Issue No.1: Whether the suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties?
Additional Issue No.2: Whether the suit is barred by
limitation?
10.The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and the supporting witnesses were examined as PWs 2 to 4 and Exs. A.1 to A.6 were exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff. Through the evidence of PW4 Exs.X.1 to X.4 were exhibited. D.1 got herself examined as D.W.1, the Tahsildar, Pendurthi was examined as
D.W.2 and Ex.B.1 was exhibited through the evidence of DW1.
11.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants.Perused the written arguments filed by the plaintiff.
12. Issue No.1:- Both the plaintiff and D.1 reiterated their respective pleadings during the course of their evidence and the learned counsel for the 10 plaintiff and defendants reaffirmed the contentions of respective parties to the proceedings during the course of their arguments in all material particulars and to avoid repetition the same is not discussed in detail.
13.The plaintiff mainly deposed that D.1 is the owner of Ac.26.11 cents of dry land covered by survey nos.2,4,5,6,8 and 10 and T.D. patta
No.3050 of Purushothapuram Agraharam village and she got the same as per the decree in OS 79/75 dt.11.05.1989 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s
Court, Visakhapatnam. She alienated Ac.3.00 cents of land covered by survey no.4,5 and 6 T.D.No.3050 in favour of plaintiff for Rs.7,23,498/-, on 2.2.02.
The plaintiff paid entire sale consideration to D.1 and the transaction was engrossed on requisite stamp and the property was delivered to the plaintiff and the plaintiff submitted the sale deed dt. 02.02.2002 along with D.1 for registration to D.2. D.1 originally filed OS 79/75 and also filed IA 112/82 for final decree and after examining the evidence, the court engrossed final decree dt.11.05.1989 by collecting an amount of Rs.3140/- and so the document attained statutory value. D.2 instead of registering the document kept it pending for more than 13 months and issued a letter dt. 10.03.03 i.e. Ex.A.1 stating that the property is prohibited for registration. So the basis for the plaintiff to file the suit is Ex.A.1.
14.Ex.A.1 shows the details of the executant as D.1, name of the purchaser as the plaintiff, names of the attesting witnesses as V.V.Ramana
Murthy and S. Venugopal. It shows the date of presentation of sale deed as dt.2.2.02 besides showing the reason for refusal. In the said letter/ notice at para No.3 it is mentioned that - “the government by virtue of G.O.Ms. No.511 Revenue (Regd.1) dt.28.07.2000 has declared survey no.4 of Purushothapuram Village as Inam
Dry land and prohibited from registration was published in part I extraordinary
No.361 dated 25.8.20000 at page No.30 of the notification and the collector vide
Rc.No.1279/2002 F3 dt.02.04.2002 has instructed not to entertain the
Registrations in Purushottapuram Agraharam village till the enquiries under the provisions of the I.A. Act is completed and Ryotwari Pattas are issued. The 11
District Registrar and Collector under section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act vide memo No.1340/G2/47-A/02 dt.23.12.2002 has also issued orders to take action as per the orders of the collector”.
In view of the above that the document consists of property in survey nos.
4,5 and 6 of Purushottapuram village as stated in the government notification as aforesaid for purpose of prohibition to registration.
Accordingly the document is liable to refused for registration as the registration is against public policy.....”.
15.The Sub Registrar also made it clear in the said order that an appeal can be filed before the District Registrar within 30 days from the order under
Section 72(1) of the Registration Act, 1908.
16.The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the said order/ notice refusing to register the sale deed is null and void. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of the order in OA 2/03 passed by D.3 which was also dismissed and in the said order it is mentioned that purushottapuram Agraharam village is part of the Purushottapuram Village. Ex.A.3 is the orders passed by the
Hon’ble Apex court in Special Leave Petition (CC 8217/05 dt.23.03.05. The
Hon’ble apex court held that the petitioners therein were bonafide prosecuting
the litigation, the period from the date of filing writ application before the High
Court till the date of orders of the apex court shall be excluded in calculating the period of limitation for filing suit, while holding that there is no ground to interfere with the orders.
17.Ex.A.4 is the copy of proceedings dt.23.04.2001 of Special Deputy
Tahsildar. Ex.A.5 is the copy of orders passed by Revenue Divisional Officer dt.18.9.10. The SLP was preferred by the plaintiff as against the orders in Writ
Appeal No.428/2005 dt.23.03.05. The order makes it clear that in calculating the period for filing the suit shall be construed by excluding the period from the date of filing of writ appeal before the Hon’ble High Court till the date of orders. So it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to approach the civil court to get remedy.
12
18.DW1 who reiterated her pleadings mainly deposed that she is the owner of Ac.26.11 cents of dry land having acquired the same by way of decree in OS 79/75 dt.11.5.89 while contending that she never alienated the schedule property to the plaintiff. She further stated that the property was not delivered to her and it is pending before the Hon’ble High Court in AS No.1801/89. At the same time she deposed that she entered into an agreement dt.7.10.96 to sell her property to J.Bava Narayana and 5 others with certain conditions and that she would rescind the contract as the purchasers have violated the terms of the agreement. She also stated that the recitals of sale deed will establish the fraud played by the plaintiff against her to grab the property.
19.PW1 admits in the cross-examination that D.1 acquired the property in a family partition through a decree passed by the I Addl. Senior
Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff further stated that there is no
dispute before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the suit schedule property. PW1 denied the suggestion that no consideration was passed under
Ex.A.1 sale deed. He further denied the suggestion that without paying any consideration to D.1, the plaintiff got the sale deed by playing fraud against her. He admits about preferring an appeal against the orders of Sub Registrar and also about the orders passed by the Hon’ble apex court. He stated that he has seen the final decree copy furnished by D.1 to her counsel. He further stated that he does not know whether the appeals were pending before the
Hon’ble High Court in respect of the property covered under the final decree
property. Through him Ex.B.1 copy of order in SLP 12078/2006 dt.4.8.06 was marked as Ex.B.1. He admits that he is one of the parties in the SLP.
20.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Hon'ble apex court empowered him to approach civil court to seek redressal by way of filing suit and accordingly he approached the civil court by filing the suit within the period of limitation. The plaintiff further stated in his cross-examination that he filed Ex.A.4 and A.5 documents to show that Purushottapuram and
Purushottapuram Agraharam are two different villages.
13
21.When DW1/ D.1 was cross-examined she stated that she cannot identify her signatures due to poor memory, since the time of demise of her husband.
She further stated that she has not filed chief affidavit in the court. She also stated that she does not know whether on 02.02.2002 she received
Rs.7,23,498/- from the plaintiff and executed a sale deed in his favour on that day. She says that at the instance of her husband she signed on some papers as he told her that the matters would be sorted out if she affixes her signatures. Basing on the cross-examination made on behalf of D.1 and the answers given by the plaintiff, it is clear that D.1 intends to say that the plaintiff obtained the sale deed without paying proper sale consideration.
22.PW3 is the son of D.1 who stated that from out of the property acquired by D.1 towards her share in final decree in OS 79/75 in IA 112/82, his mother alienated Ac.3.00 cents of land i.e. the schedule property which is a private land consisting of three items. His evidence further shows that prior to the execution of sale deed his mother received Rs.2,23,498/- and on the date of execution of sale deed she received Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cheque from the plaintiff. His father signed as 1st attestor. The name of his father is V.V.
Ramana Murthy whose name is shown as one of the attesting witnesses.
According to him the 6th defendant has nothing to do with the schedule property. So his evidence clearly proved that D.1 executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving consideration from the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that at the instigation of the plaintiff he signed on the sale deed and that no amount was given to the 1st defendant. The suggestions made to PW3 by the learned counsel counsel for D.1 makes it clear that D.1 intends to say that no consideration was passed to D.1. PW1 also denied the suggestion that without paying any consideration to D.1, he obtained the sale deed by playing fraud against her. So the execution of sale deed by D.1 is proved, but D.1 has not placed any convincing evidence to show that the plaintiff played any fraud and that no consideration was passed as alleged by D.1 from the plaintiff.
14
23.PW2 is the 3rd party to the proceedings and his evidence is almost all on similar lines to the evidence of PW1. He mainly deposed that D.1 out of her free will executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff and that the 1st defendant’s husband signed as 1st attestor and he signed as 2nd attestor.
Ex.A.1 shows the names of attesting witnesses as V.V. Ramana Murthy and S.
Venugopal i.e. PW2. His evidence further shows that the schedule property is a zeroyathi land of Purushottapuram Agraharam. In the cross-examination
PW2 stated that except on the sale deed, he has not signed on any document.
According to him consideration was passed to D.1 by way of cash and on the date of registration cheque was issued in the name of D.1. He denied the suggestion that the cheque was not honoured so far. So the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 proved the execution of sale deed by D.1.
24.PW4 is a summoned witness. Through him Ex.X.1 certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi was exhibited and it shows that the land covered by survey no. 2,4,5,6,8 and 12 belongs to private persons.
Ex.X.3 is application submitted by Jaladi Mahalakshmi Eswaramma and the present plaintiff wherein the plaintiff and Mahalakshmi Eswaramma requested the MRO to verify the facts and clarify the Sub Registrar that the land covered by survey No.4,5, 6 in T.D.No.3050 of Purushotapuram Agraharam village was not notified for any prohibition of registration and the land of an extent of
Ac.0.36 cents in survey nos. 4,5, & 6 has nothing to do with the above said lands. PW4 stated that Ex.X.4 does not specifically speak about
Purushotapuram Agraharam.
25.The Tahsildar who was examined as DW2 deposed that the Sub
Registrar refused to register the sale deed dt.2.2.02 in respect of the schedule property as he is empowered to refuse registration of sale deed which is against public policy. In the evidence he deposed about the details of the appeal preferred by plaintiff , writ petition filed by the plaintiff and also the Special
Leave Petition filed by the plaintiff before the Hon’ble Apex court. His evidence shows that the plaintiff presented the document relating to survey Nos. 4,5,6 15 in T.D.No.3050 consisting of Ac.3.00 cents and that the Sub Registrar refused to register the same. His evidence further shows that the villages by name
Purushothapuram and Purushothapuram Agraharam are totally different. He further stated that per the directions of the Joint Collector, he visited the suit schedule property for the purpose of laying the road. He stated that the villages by name Purushothapuram and Purushothapuram Agraharam are Inam lands held by private persons. He does not know whether the lands covered by survey Nos.2,4,5,6,8,12 of Purushothapuram Agraharam belongs to Yendavalli
Venkata Ramana Murthy or not. According to him the schedule property is situated in Purushothapuram Agraharam.
26.As per Ex.A.5 orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the matter is remitted back to Inam Deputy Tahsildar to conduct enquiry in respect of the lands measuring Ac.55.14 cents in S.No2,4,5,6,8 and 12 of
Purushothapuram Agraharam. He denied the suggestion that there is no bar at all for the purpose of registration of suit lands situated in Purushothapurm
Agraharam. DW2 also denied the suggestion that bar under section 22-A applies only to the lands of government as well as public but not to the lands held by private persons under Inam Act and that the bar is not applicable to the Inam lands.
27.DW2 admits that when the plaintiff and Jaladi Eswaramma, approached them, they gave a clarification with regard to suit land under
Ex.X.3. Ex.A.6 is the copy of Gazettee notification in respect of G.O.Ms. No.
509 (Revenue Registration-I) dt.28.07.2000 and it refers to the application of section 22(A). As per Ex.A.6 the subject matter of the lands and it's survey numbers were not mentioned. It further shows that the registration of the document pertaining to the immovable properties of the village
Purushothapuram shown in Ex.A.6 are opposed to public policy. The northern boundary to the properties mentioned in the annexure is shown as purushothapuram Agraharam. Therefore, it is clear that the schedule 16 properties are not covered by G.O.Ms. No.509 dt. 28.7.2000 and the said GO refers to purushothapuram village but not to purushothapuram Agraharam.
28.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following decisions.
(1) In a case held in between1 Kunchanapalli Mysooraiah vs Sub
Registrar, Cuddapah district and others wherein his Lordship of our
Hon’ble High Court of A.P held at para No.8 as follows:
“The government is vested with the power under section 22-A of the Registration Act to notify to the registering authority the details of the properties in respect of which the registration shall not be effected. Except in a case where a property is notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the registering authority has no power to refuse to register a document presented to him as regards the property within his jurisdiction, if the document is otherwise in order and if there is no dispute as to the identity of the executant.”
His Lordship further held in the same paragraph at the bottom as follows:
“Therefore, the dispute as to the title or pendency of proceedings does not confer any right on the registering authority to withhold the document. The satisfaction for the purpose of registration has to be wholly in terms of the provisions of the relevant Acts and not beyond that. Since no notification has been issued by the government under Section 22-A of the Registration Act in respect of survey No.42, the action of the respondents in withholding the document presented by the petitioner for registration is not legal and proper and the same is unsustainable”.
In the instant case also D.2 being the Registering Authority withheld the document on the pretext that there is a bar for registration of the document relating to the schedule property for the reason that the schedule properties are situated in Purushothapuram Agraharam. Both the villages are distinct and different as per G.O. The northern boundary of the lands mentioned in annexure is shown as Purushothapuram Agraharam. The said GO is issued in respect of the lands relating to purushothapuram village. There is no specific
GO prohibiting the registration of lands of Purushothapuram Agraharam and hence D.2 is bound to register the property.
12005(5) ALT 616 17 (2)In a decision held between 2A. Mohan Rao vs Sub Registrar,
Stamps and Registration Department, Chittoor and others wherein his
Lordship of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. held at para No.4 as follows:
“ Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended through Act 19 of 2007, prohibits registration of documents pertaining to the properties owned by the government, assigned lands or the properties owned by the religious institutions. Registration of documents in respect of such properties can certainly be refused. Further, if a court of law passes an order of injunction prohibiting alienation of an item of property, registration of documents in relation to such property becomes untenable”.
His Lordship held in the same paragraph of the said judgment initially as follows:
“The Registering Officer is under obligation to process the document presented before him, if the requirements as to payment of stamp duty and registration charges are complied with. It is no part of his duty to verify the title of the vendor or the capacity of the purchaser, Where, however, specific prohibition against registration exists, be it in the form of order passed by the competent court or a provision of law, the registration can certainly be refused”.
In the instant case also there is no specific bar to register the schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. Similarly there is no order of court prohibiting registration of schedule properties. The defendants have not placed any such GO showing prohibition of registration of the schedule properties.
Therefore, certainly D.2 is under an obligation to register the properties.
29.Even Ex.A.6 does not specify that the schedule properties cannot be registered for the reason that the said G.O. Ms. No. 509 was meant for purushothapuram village only.
30.D.6 filed a petition stating that he is a necessary party to the proceedings and he was brought on record as per the orders in IA 598/06.
Though D.6 filed written statement contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property he has not come to the witness box.
22012(6) ALT 66 18
Similarly he also contended that he is in possession of Ac. 261.19 cents in
S.Nos.1 to 14 of Purushothapuram village.
31.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that though D.6 contended that he purchased or entered into an agreement to purchase any land from D.1 his remedy is elsewhere but not in this suit because the suit is filed for declaration that the refusal to register a document is illegal. In a decision held inbetween 3 Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and another wherein their
Lordships of the Apex Court held as follows:
“Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross- examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.”
Therefore, the pleadings of D.6 will be of no consequence to his case in the absence of his evidence. Therefore, D.2 is under an obligation to register the schedule property as there are no other grounds to stall the registration of the property. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get the registration by declaring that Ex.A.1 notice is void and unenforceable.
32. Issue No.2:- Since Ex.A.6 does not relate to the suit schedule property, Ex.A.1 is declared as void and therefore D.2 is under an obligation to register the schedule property in favour of D.1.
33.Though the defendants pleaded that the Sub Registrar cannot register the schedule property for the reason that the property situated in
Purushothapuram cannot be registered, they have not placed convincing evidence to show that the schedule properties are notified by the government so as to withhold a registration. The evidence placed by the plaintiff is clear that the schedule properties are private lands and D.1 cannot raise objection, who is no more, including his L.R's on the ground that no consideration was passed for the reason that already sale deed was submitted to the Sub 3AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1441 19
Registrar and when it is about to be registered, the document is kept pending.
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief mandatory injunction as prayed for.
34. Additional Issue No.1:- D.8 pleaded that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties on the ground that D.1 executed a registered will dt.31.10.12 bequeathing the schedule property in favour of D.8 and his two sons Uppala Venkata Ramana Murthy and Uppala Venkata Reddy and as such
D.8 and his two sons are entitled to claim the estate of deceased D.1. His contention is that his two sons are also necessary parties.
35.In this case due to the demise of D.1, D.7 to D.10 were brought on record. D.8 cannot take a different plea as he enters into the shoes of D.1 on the demise of D.1. D.1 never pleaded that sons the of D.8 are necessary parties. D.8 cannot take any such plea. Since the plaintiff proved the execution of sale deed by D.1, D.8 has no right to take any other plea other than the plea raised by D.1 which was disproved by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought the relief of declaration that the notice issued by D.2 is illegal and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction. Since the execution has been completed, he sought the only relief of getting the document registered through the authority concerned. Therefore, the children of D.8 are not necessary parties. Accordingly additional issue No.1 is answered.
36. Additional Issue No.2:- D.7 pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the suit is very much within the period of limitation for the reason that the plaintiff filed the suit within one month from the date of receipt of order. The learned Asst.
Government Pleader also argued that the suit is barred by limitation for the reason that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within a period of 30 days, whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that the
Hon’ble Apex Court while permitting the plaintiff to file the suit disposed of the
Special Leave Petition on 12.09.05. The certified copy was received on 20 13.09.05 and the suit was filed on 15.10.05 immediately after Dasara
Vacation.
37.Under section 77 of Registration Act, a suit has to be filed within one month. While arguing so, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision held in between 4Anjinamma and another vs Puttahariyappa and others wherein his Lordship of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka referred to the judgment of apex court in para No.6 as follows:
“The apex court in the case reported in (1998) 4 SCC 543, (AIR 1998 SC 1827) in the case of Shreenath vs Rajesh at Paragraph 3 after interpreting Order 21, Rules 97(1) and (2), 101, 99,100 and 103 as they stood prior to 1976 amendment and also rules 35 and 36 of the Rules has succinctly laid down the law which reads thus:
“In interpreting any procedural law, where more than one interpretation is possible, the one which curtails the procedure without eluding justice is to be adopted. The procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed”.
38.While referring to the above said decision his Lordship of
Karnataka High Court held that the presentation of document within 30 days time under section 77 of the Act is procedural aspect which is required to be viewed very leniently to see that justice is done to the parties. For the aforesaid reason, issuance of impugned endorsement by 7th respondent is bad in law.
39.Similarly Ex.B.1 does not relate to the suit schedule property for the reason that D.6 pleaded that he has been in possession and enjoyment of
Ac.261.19 cents covered by survey no.1 to 14 of purushothapuram village, whereas the schedule property is situated in purushothapuram agraharam which is quite different to the village purushothapuram. So the claim made by
D.6 is quite irregular for the reason that D.6 is claiming right in respect of the land situated in Purushothapuram Village whereas the schedule property is situated at Purushothapuram Agraharam.
4AIR 2003 Karnataka 21
40.According to D.2 to D.5, as per Ex.A.6 gazettee notification the properties covered by various survey numbers situated at Purushothapuram cannot be registered as the registration of documents of those properties relates to public policy. Ex.A.6 shows the northern boundary as the property situated at Purushothapuram Agraharam which is quite different to purushothapuram village .
41.D.6 has not come to the witness box in support of his pleadings.
Whereas the plaintiff clearly proved the execution of Sale deed by D.1 and failure on part of D.2 to register the sale deed, though D.2 is under an obligation to register the same as there is no specific bar for the registration of the property. Hence additional issue no.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit is not barred by limitation.
42. Issue No.3:- In the result the suit is decreed with costs by declaring the notice issued by D.2 dt.13.02.2003 as illegal and unenforceable besides directing the plaintiff to get the sale deed duly registered by Sub Registrar concerned as held by the apex court in the Special Leave petition basing on which the plaintiff approached the civil court.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by
me in open court this the 19th day of January,2015.
VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam. FAC III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, VSP
Appendix of evidence No. of witnesses examined for
Plaintiff:Defendant: P.W.1 : Ch. Pattabhi Rama RaoD.W.1: Vuppala Lakshmi Devi P.W.2 : Simhadri VenugopalD.W.2 : N.S.N.Swamy, Tahsildar, P.W.3 : Vuppala Lakshmana Murthy Pedurthi P.W.4: M.V.Radha Krishna
No. of documents marked for Plaintiff: Ex.A.1/10.03.2003Notice issued by D.2 refusing registration. Ex.A.2/07.07.03Certified copy of Order in OA 2/2003 Ex.A.3/Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Ex.A.4/23.04.2001Copy of proceedings of Spl. Dy.Tahsildar (Inams) Ex.A.5/18.09.2010Copy of the proceedings of RDO,VSP Ex.A.6/Copy of Gazettee notification.
22
Defendants: Ex.B.1/ Notarised copy of order in SLP 12078/2006 of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
“ X” Series
Ex.X.1/16.11.2004Certificate in Dis.No.550/2004/A Ex.X.2/Relevant entry in 10(1) relating to the lands in Survey No. 2,4,8,12,5,6. Ex.X.3/Application submitted by the plaintiff and another to the MRO Ex.X.4/30.9.1962 Copy of gazettee publication.
VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam.
23