Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HARINATH NUNEPALLY, JJ.
The District Registrar and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Reddivaripalli Gangireddy Ramana Reddy - Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 716 and 717 of 2021
Decided On : 22-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Vajjhala Satyanarayana Prasad
Section 22-B of the Registration Act applies only to deeds of sale, not to deeds of gift, as clarified by the court's interpretation of statutory language.
Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-B - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 54 and 122 - Refusal of registration of deeds of gift - The court held that Section 22-B applies only to deeds of sale and not to deeds of gift, as the language is clear and unambiguous. The learned Single Judge's ruling was upheld, emphasizing that registering authorities cannot adjudicate on property titles. (Paras 6, 7, 15)
(B) Interpretation of Statutes - The court reiterated that the words in a statute must be given their ordinary meanings unless strong reasons suggest otherwise. The intention of the legislature is paramount in statutory interpretation. (Paras 58, 59)
Facts of the case:
The respondent sought to register two deeds of gift for land to his wife, which were refused by the registering authority citing Section 22-B due to prior alienation of land. The respondent contended that Section 22-B does not apply to deeds of gift.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the refusal of registration under Section 22-B was incorrect, as it only pertains to deeds of sale. The respondent must prove ownership before registration can proceed.
Issues: The main issues were whether Section 22-B applies to deeds of gift and the authority of registering officers to refuse registration based on prior alienation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that Section 22-B does not empower refusal of registration for deeds of gift, and the interpretation of statutes must align with the legislature's intent.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
1. As both the Writ Appeals arise out of similar transactions and are in relation to the same parties, they are being disposed of by way of this common Judgment.
2. The respondent herein had presented two deeds of gift executed by him in favour of his wife. Under the first deed of gift, dated 30.06.2018, the respondent sought to gift an extent of 945 square yards of land to his wife. This document was given pending Document No. 352 of 2018, by the 2nd appellant herein. Similarly, the respondent sought to gift an extent of 1305 sq.yards of land in favour of his wife, by way of deed of gift dated 30.06.2018 which was pending Document No. 353 of 2018, by the 2nd appellant. Subsequently, the 2nd appellant, by an order dated 19.07.2018, had refused registration of both the deeds of gift on the ground that the respondent had executed various deeds of sale alienating all the land owned by him and the deeds of gift were seeking to alienate land which was not available to the respondent. For this purpose, the 2nd appellant invoked the provisions of Section 22-B of the Registration Act.
3. Aggrieved by the said orders of refusal, the respondent had approached the 1st appellant, by way of an appeal. Both the appeals were dismissed by the 1st appellant, by an order dated 29.01.2020.
4. Aggrieved by these orders, the respondent had approached this Court, by way of W.P. No.15527 of 2020 and W.P. No.15542 of 2020. The primary contention raised by the respondent, before the learned Single Judge, was that the language of Section 22-B would be applicable only to deeds of sale and the provisions of Section 22-B of the Registration Act cannot be invoked to refuse registration of deeds of gift. The learned Single Judge accepted this contention and allowed the Writ Petitions setting aside the rejection orders dated 19.07.2018 and the subsequent appellate orders dated 29.01.2020 with a further direction to the 2nd appellant to receive and register the said documents.
5. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge in both these Writ Petitions dated 29.07.2021, these two appeals have been filed before this Court.
6. Section 22-B of the Registration Act reads as follows:
"Section 22-B: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, no Registering Office shall accept for registration of any document relating to the sale of any immovable property, if the property comprised therein has already been conveyed or permanently alienated by the same person or his representative, 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".
7. The learned Single Judge held that Section 22-B empowered the Registering Officer not to accept registration of a document relating to sale of immovable property only and that the said provisions would not empower or authorize the registering authority to reject the registration of deeds of gift. The learned Single Judge took this view on the ground that sale of immovable property is defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act whereas a deed of gift is covered under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act.
8. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants seeks to assail this view of the learned Single Judge, by relying upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Doypack Systems Private Limited vs. Union of India and Others (1988) 2 SCC 299, Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain and Others vs. Eknath Vithal Ogale (1995) 2 SCC 665, Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Mahesh and Others (2022) 2 SCC 772 and S. Ambika and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
9. In M/s. Doypack Systems Private Limited vs. Union of India and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of whether certain shares stood transferred and whethe
