Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao, Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ
Medarametla Venkata Sesha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of A.P – Respondent
This Court made the following Judgment :
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
The appellant herein had filed O.S.No.76 of 2015, against the 5th respondent, before the Principal District Judge, Nellore, for partition of land situated in various survey numbers of Brahmanakraka Village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. An injunction restraining alienation of the suit schedule property, is said to have been issued in I.A.No.200 of 2015, in the said suit. The trial and arguments in the suit are said to have been completed and the suit was reserved for Judgment, on 27.04.2023, by the Principal District Judge, Nellore and the same is pending for Judgment.
2. The appellant, approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.17278 of 2024, on the ground that the respondents had executed nominal sale deeds in favour of respondents 7 to 11, at the instigation and under the guidance of respondent No.6, for the purposes of depriving the claims, of the appellant, over the said land.
3. The appellant further contends that the Tahsildar, Jaladanki Mandal, in proceedings bearing Rc.No.915/2019 had issued an endorsement, in September 2021, which was challenged by the 6th respondent, as G.P.A holder of respondents 9 and
The court established that the maintenance of a dispute register requires statutory backing, and a partition suit does not fall under Section 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pa....
Entries in a dispute register require explicit directions from competent authorities, and failure to provide notice renders such actions unlawful.
The court ruled that land cannot be classified as prohibited under Section 22-A without proper Gazette notification, allowing registration of sale deeds.
Point of Law : Refusal of registration of property - Once civil litigation is pending and an injunction order is granted preventing alienation, no alienation can take place.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Sub Registrar to refuse registration of a document based on objections from the Temple Authorities under Section 22-A of th....
The court held that placing the property of this petitioner in disputed register without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 9(1)(c)(ii) is an illegality and the same is liable to be set-....
Point of Law : Words “a notice to all persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that the registry will be made” assumes importance in the present case. According to the petitioner, no ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal for registration of properties based on defective notifications under Section 22-A of the Registration Act was illegal, arbitrary,....
Injunction suits are maintainable where the plaintiff is in lawful possession, even amidst title disputes, unless the defendant can demonstrate a valid claim to title.
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
