SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(AP) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.
Gamya Karanam Madhu – Petitioner
Versus
State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Amaravathi, A.P. & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 507 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amancharla V. Gopala Rao, Counsel.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Release of Sale deed – Doctrine of comity or amity – Seeking declaration the-action of respondent in not releasing even after registration of sale deed and mortgage deed pertaining to petitioner – Held, It is settled law that Court while exercising’ a judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order, if passed, would make parties to lis or a third party to violate a lawful order passed by another Court – No public servant shall perform an act, which if performed, would result in encouraging a party to lis to violate a lawful order of a Court – Therefore, Joint Sub Registrar concerned is justified in keeping registration/and or release of subject documents – Injunction orders are in operation, petitioner cannot seek relief claimed in writ petition by invoking equity jurisdiction of this Court – Doctrine of comity or amity requires this Court not to pass an order, which comes in conflict with injunction orders passed by a competent Court of law – Writ Petition dismissed (Para 8)

Facts of the Case:

Seeking declaration the-action of respondent in not releasing even after registration of sale deed and mortgage deed pertaining to petitioner

Findings of the Case:

It is settled law that Court while exercising’ a judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order, if passed, would make parties to lis or a third party to violate a lawful order passed by another Court – No public servant shall perform an act, which if performed, would result in encouraging a party to lis to violate a lawful order of a Court – Therefore, Joint Sub Registrar concerned is justified in keeping registration/and or release of subject documents – Injunction orders are in operation, petitioner cannot seek relief claimed in writ petition by invoking equity jurisdiction of this Court – Doctrine of comity or amity requires this Court not to pass an order, which comes in conflict with injunction orders passed by a competent Court of law

Result: Writ Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking verbatim the following relief:

“… to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the-action of the respondent No.4 in not releasing the P.248 of 2018 dt.29.06.2018 and P.249 of 2018 dt.30.06.2018 even after registration of the sale deed and mortgage deed pertaining to the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to release registered sale deed to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though no counter has been filed by the official respondents, learned Government Pleader appearing for the said respondents orally resisted the writ petition, based on the written instructions, dated 29.01.2019, a copy of which is placed on record, I have perused the material record.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is this:

‘One Muniamma was the owner of the house property bearing Municipal Door nos. 18-697, 698 & 699 admeasuring us Sq. yards situated at Muthu Mestiy Street, Chittoor Town. The petitioner purchased the said property from the said Muniamma for a valuable consideration of Rs.95,00,000/- after availing loan from M/s. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (‘DHFL’). The petitioner paid huge stamp duty of Rs.4,74,100/-, vide challan, dated 14.06.2018. The petitioner paid transfer duty of Rs.1,42,500/- & Rs.19,000/- vide challans, dated 14.06.2018 & 29.06.2018. She had also paid registration fee of Rs.95,000/- vide challan, dated 14.06.2018, along with user charges of Rs.250/- for registration of the sale deed executed by the said vendor in favour of the petitioner. When the document is presented for registration before the 4th respondent-Joint Sub Registrar, Chittoor, necessary receipt and presentation No.248 of 2018 were generated. However, the respondents did not release the document till date even after registration of the sale deed. The respondents also did not release the mortgage deed, which is related to the mortgage transaction in favour of the creditor. When the petitioner made enquiries, she came to know that the son of the vendor filed a suit for partition against the vendor and that a Civil Court passed orders not to alienate the property. However, as per the settled law, registration of a document cannot be stopped by the registration authorities for whatever reasons. The mere pendency of a partition suit does not prevent either the vendor from executing a registered sale deed or the purchaser from obtaining a registered sale deed. Since the property was purchased by availing loan from M/s. DHFL, the officers of the said Finance Company are harassing the petitioner for submitting house property sale deed and deed of mortgage; and, though the petitioner was not at fault, they are threatening the petitioner by stating that the petitioner has to face prosecution. The sale deed, after its registration has to be submitted to the Financier as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. Further, the memorandum of mortgage executed in favour of M/s. DHFL is also pending before the 4th respondent for registration; vide P.249/2018, dated 30.06.2018. The petitioner, who is a purchaser, is not a party to the litigation between the vendor and her son. Hence, the respondents ought to have released the sale deed and the mortgage deed. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.’

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, having reiterated the pleaded case of the petitioner, submits that the property is not admittedly in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and that the sale deed as well as the mortgage deed are being withheld without being released, merely because a sui







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top