2021 Supreme(AP) 447

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Vakacharla Veeraiah - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition 17182 of 2019
Decided On : 09-07-2021

A purchaser under an unregistered sale deed does not acquire any right or interest in the immovable property.

Headnote:

The Court held that the petitioner, being a purchaser under an unregistered sale deed, did not acquire any right or interest in the immovable property. The Court also held that the petitioner did not possess any existing right or interest, and therefore the question of infringement or invasion, threatened infringement or invasion by the respondents did not arise. The Court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim a writ of mandamus. The Court also held that the petitioner did not make any demand by submitting an appropriate application through Meeseva on payment of requisite fee/charges to de-notify the subject property from the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act. The Court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to take advantage of the representation made by his vendors to respondent Nos.1 and 2 since the properties were notified under Section 22A (1) (c) of the Registration Act by the competent authority and no such application/representation was made to respondent No.7 strictly in compliance with the provisions of law. The Court also held that as the petitioner did not acquire any right being a purchaser under an unregistered sale deed, the 'enduring rights theory' had no application and no grave public interest or constitutional necessity was involved in the present facts of the case. Consequently, the rights, if any, accrued on account of the ordinance, which ceased to subsist in terms of Article 213 (2) of the Constitution of India, such rights stood effaced and obliterated since no grave public interest or Constitutional necessity was involved in the present case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner purchased a property from his vendors under an unregistered sale deed. The property was included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner presented the sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to de-notify the property from the list of prohibited properties and to register the sale deed.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner, being a purchaser under an unregistered sale deed, did not acquire any right or interest in the immovable property. The Court also held that the petitioner did not possess any existing right or interest, and therefore the question of infringement or invasion, threatened infringement or invasion by the respondents did not arise. The Court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim a writ of mandamus. The Court also held that the petitioner did not make any demand by submitting an appropriate application through Meeseva on payment of requisite fee/charges to de-notify the subject property from the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act. The Court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to take advantage of the representation made by his vendors to respondent Nos.1 and 2 since the properties were notified under Section 22A (1) (c) of the Registration Act by the competent authority and no such application/representation was made to respondent No.7 strictly in compliance with the provisions of law. The Court also held that as the petitioner did not acquire any right being a purchaser under an unregistered sale deed, the 'enduring rights theory' had no application and no grave public interest or constitutional necessity was involved in the present facts of the case. Consequently, the rights, if any, accrued on account of the ordinance, which ceased to subsist in terms of Article 213 (2) of the Constitution of India, such rights stood effaced and obliterated since no grave public interest or Constitutional necessity was involved in the present case.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner being a purchaser under unregistered sale deed is entitled to claim writ of Mandamus? 2. Whether the petitioner being a purchaser under unregistered sale deed acquired any right, thereby respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed to de-notify the property from the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22A (1) of the Registration Act and register the document presented by the petitioner for registration executed by his vendors viz. Bandhaviramam Venkata Kumari; Bandhaviramam Nagaraju and Bandhaviramam Manjusha, by respondent No.5?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner, being a purchaser under an unregistered sale deed, did not acquire any right or interest in the immovable property. The Court also held that the petitioner did not possess any existing right or interest, and therefore the question of infringement or invasion, threatened infringement or invasion by the respondents did not arise. The Court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim a writ of mandamus. The Court also held that the petitioner did not make any demand by submitting an appropriate application through Meeseva on payment of requisite fee/charges to de-notify the subject property from the list of prohibited properties notified under Section 22-A (1) (c) of the Registration Act. The Court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to take advantage of the representation made by his vendors to respondent Nos.1 and 2 since the properties were notified under Section 22A (1) (c) of the Registration Act by the competent authority and no such application/representation was made to respondent No.7 strictly in compliance with the provisions of law. The Court also held that as the petitioner did not acquire any right being a purchaser under an unregistered sale deed, the 'enduring rights theory' had no application and no grave public interest or constitutional necessity was involved in the present facts of the case. Consequently, the rights, if any, accrued on account of the ordinance, which ceased to subsist in terms of Article 213 (2) of the Constitution of India, such rights stood effaced and obliterated since no grave public interest or Constitutional necessity was involved in the present case.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition.