S. Ambika vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, JJ.
S.Ambika – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.A.No.735 of 2022
Decided on : 05-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Registration Act, 1908 – Section 71, 22B - Registration refused - Empowers all the High Courts of India to issue the writs - Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document - Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy -Whether there are merits in writ appeal to allow – Held, Court find no much force in contention of appellants that respondent has not assigned any reasons for refusal - So far as other contention of appellants that in spite of earlier registered sale deed in favour of respondent and in spite of embargo created under Section-22B, Sub-Registrar cannot decide title of parties and refuse registration for reason, earlier sale was only a conditional sale deed and since respondent failed to fulfill conditions in sale deed, she cannot lay any claim in respect of subject property and therefore Sub- Registrar erred in refusing registration is concerned, as rightly held by learned single Judge, issue relating to validity of earlier sale deed cannot be decided by respondent - However, obliging Section-22B he can only refuse registration of subsequent document i.e., partition deed - As observed by learned single Judge, parties have to agitate their rights before a competent Court - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

This intra Court appeal is filed under Clause-15 of letters patent challenging the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.19512/2019 by learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition leaving open to the parties to pursue their legal remedies.

2. The petitioners’ case is that they are the legal representatives (LRs) of one Perumallu Nadar who was the absolute owner of the subject land property and some other properties. The said Perumallu Nadar died on 15.12.1978 leaving behind the petitioners as his successors to his properties.

(a) While so, the petitioners entered into a joint family partition and settlement deed and presented the said document on 26.07.2019 before the Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Nellore/ 5th respondent who assigned document with pending registration No.1305/2019 (CS.No.7459/2019) without effecting registration. On persuasion, the 5th respondent issued refusal order No.22/2019 vide notice P/1305/2019, dated 13.08.2019 without assigning any reason. On enquiry the petitioners came to know the reason for refusal of the registration was that the subject property was already sold by the father of the petitioners late Perumallu Nadar to the 6th respondent. The said fact was mentioned in the ‘Book-2 Register’ maintained by the 5th respondent and the petitioners obtained the copy of the same. However, in the refusal order No.22/2019, dated 13.08.2019 no reason was mentioned so as to enable the petitioners to take further legal course of action. The said order is only a nonspeaking order. It is the further case of the petitioners that even if the sale in favour of the 6th respondent is true, it was only a conditional sale and the 6th respondent has not fulfilled the conditions of the sale and therefore, she cannot get any title over the subject property. Therefore, basing on the said ineffective and inoperative sale deed, the 5th respondent could not have refused to register the family partition deed presented by the petitioners. Hence the writ petition No.19512/2019.

3. Respondent No.4 filed counter and opposed the writ petition on the main contention that as per the sale deed bearing No.685/1976, dated 27.07.1975 which was registered in the office of the District Registrar, Nellore on 05.04.1976, the unofficial respondent No.6 has purchased an extent of Ac.3.44 cents consisting of Rice Mill etc., from S.R. Perumallu Nadar, the ancestor of the petitioners and some others and as per Section 22-B of the Registration Act, no registering office shall accept for registration any document relating to the sale of any immovable property, if the property comprised therein has already been conveyed or permanently alienated by same person or his representatives, assignee or agent in favour of any other person by a registered document unless the previous registered document is cancelled by order of a Court. In view of statutory bar enacted under Section 22-B of the Registration Act, the partition deed dated 26.07.2019 presented by the petitioners was rejected by the 5th respondent by the refusal order No.22/2019, dated 13.08.2019.

4. Learned single Judge on hearing both parties passed the following order:

“In view of the statutory provision and as the object behind it is discernible, this Court does not wish to state anything more on the merits of the matter. The issues raised about the sale/conditional sale etc., are all matters of fact, which require evidence etc., to rule on the true import of the document. There are a number of other transactions which are visible from the record and relating to the property like Document Nos.2251/2016; 1345/2013; 1595/2016 etc. The impact of these on the deed of partition presented for Registration etc., is also a matter of pleading and evidence. There are complicated questions of fact to be looked into. Deciding the same is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed leaving it open to the partie