Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi, J.
Captain Paida Janardhana Reddy (died) per LRs Smt. P. Malathi and another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondents
Writ Petition No.19021 of 2015
Decided On : 04-03-2020
Registration Act, 1908 - Section 32-A - A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Section 6B and 6D - Writ petition is filed “to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in registering Document as illegal, without jurisdiction, vitiated by fraud, contrary to the provisions of Section 6B and 6D of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Section 32-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and consequently set aside the same” – Held, It is also relevant to note here that in view of the settled legal position that no one can convey a better title than what he has, the 4th respondent cannot transfer title to the 5th respondent through the sale deed -Unilateral cancellation of sale deed is also challenged in WP No.20852 of 2018 and vide order dated 19.03.2019, the High Court of Telangana, allowed the writ petition and set aside the sale deed as invalid in eye of law and illegal - petitioner, who is the owner of the part of the property mentioned in the sale deed, did not execute the sale deed. As a single document is registered for both the properties belonging to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, this Court is unable to apply the principle of, doctrine of severability and save the registration in so far as the 4th respondent’s land is concerned - Writ Petition is allowed
Facts of the Case:
Case of the petitioner is that, petitioner’s late father Paida Chengalvaraya Reddy, was the original owner of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.7.94 cents in Sy.No.263 of Pannur Village and after his demise, petitioner’s name was recorded as pattadar in the record of rights (Patta No.42) and Pattadar Passbook/title deed was also issued in his favour under the provisions of the Act; the 4th respondent taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner from the village, executed fraudulent sale deed dated 14.02.2011, which was registered as document No.322/2011 in favour of the 5th respondent, including the land of the petitioner admeasuring an extent of Ac.7.94 cents, by appending the petitioner’s pattadar pass book and making it part of the said sale deed; in the said sale deed, the 4th respondent also made a false statement that Patta No.42 and Pattadar Pass Book No.K200943, i.e., subject land was in the name of her father P. Suresh Reddy, though the same stands in the name of the petitioner; the 2nd respondent registered the said document, which relates to the total extent of Ac.14.95 cents, which includes the petitioner’s land without his knowledge and consent; the Sub Registrar is a party to the said fraud and he also affixed his signature and seal on the pattadar passbook standing in the name of the petitioner; the said action of the Sub Registrar is contrary to Section 6-B of the Act and Section 52 of the Registration Act; hence the Writ Petition
Finding of the Court:
It is also relevant to note here that in view of the settled legal position that no one can convey a better title than what he has, the 4th respondent cannot transfer title to the 5th respondent through the sale deed -Unilateral cancellation of sale deed is also challenged in WP No.20852 of 2018 and vide order dated 19.03.2019, the High Court of Telangana, allowed the writ petition and set aside the sale deed as invalid in eye of law and illegal - petitioner, who is the owner of the part of the property mentioned in the sale deed, did not execute the sale deed. As a single document is registered for both the properties belonging to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, this Court is unable to apply the principle of, doctrine of severability and save the registration in so far as the 4th respondent’s land is concerned.
Result: Writ Petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed “to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in registering Document No.322/2011, dated 14.02.2011, as illegal, without jurisdiction, vitiated by fraud, contrary to the provisions of Section 6B and 6D of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 32-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and consequently set aside the same”.
2. Case of the petitioner is that, petitioner’s late father Paida Chengalvaraya Reddy, was the original owner of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.7.94 cents in Sy.No.263 of Pannur Village and after his demise, petitioner’s name was recorded as pattadar in the record of rights (Patta No.42) and Pattadar Passbook/title deed was also issued in his favour under the provisions of the Act; the 4th respondent taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner from the village, executed fraudulent sale deed dated 14.02.2011, which was registered as document No.322/2011 in favour of the 5th respondent, including the land of the petitioner admeasuring an extent of Ac.7.94 cents, by appending the petitioner’s pattadar pass book and making it part of the said sale deed; in the said sale deed, the 4th respondent also made a false statement that Patta No.42 and Pattadar Pass Book No.K200943, i.e., subject land was in the name of her father P. Suresh Reddy, though the same stands in the name of the petitioner; the 2nd respondent registered the said document, which relates to the total extent of Ac.14.95 cents, which includes the petitioner’s land without his knowledge and consent; the Sub Registrar is a party to the said fraud and he also affixed his signature and seal on the pattadar passbook standing in the name of the petitioner; the said action of the Sub Registrar is contrary to Section 6-B of the Act and Section 52 of the Registration Act; hence the Writ Petition.
3. After filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner died, hence petitioners 2 and 3 were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 1st petitioner as per the orders of this Court passed in WPMP No.53623 of 2017, dated 28.12.2017.
4. Counter-affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent stating inter-alia that as on the date of registration of the said sale deed, production of Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed was not necessary, as exemption has been granted by the government; only from 08.05.2012, it was made mandatory by Circular Memo dated 08.05.2012 and the provisions of Section 58 of the Registration Act do not authorize the Registering Officer to enquire into the validity of the instrument; instructions were issued vide Memo dated 03.04.2010 directing the Registering Officers to accept the documents presented for registration without insisting pattadar pass books and title deeds until further orders; subject document was registered on 14.02.2011 and as on that date, the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General were in force; this Court in WA No.972 of 2004 held that the Registering Officer is not under statutory obligation to make any enquiry into the document.
5. Counter-affidavit is also filed by the 4th respondent stating, inter-alia,that the subject sale deed was executed by her with the consent of the petitioner and that the petitioner has knowledge about the agreement of sale in favour of the 5th respondent; at the time of registration of the document, it is not compulsory to obtain finger prints and that petitioner could have approached the civil court seeking cancellation of the document.
6. Counter-affidavit is also filed by the 5th respondent stating inter-alia that it has paid substantial consideration for purchase of the subject property; after verification of the revenue records, it was revealed that the said pattadar passbook bearing No.K 200943 which relates to the subject land of Ac.7.95 cents does not stand in the name of the 4th respondent’s father as alleged by her and that the owner of the said land is P. Janardhan Reddy, father of the presen
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
