ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
P. Srinivasulu and others —Petitioners
versus
Sub-Registrar, Renigunta
and Others —Respondents
W.P. No. 21836 of 2012
Decided on 07.09.2012
Result: Petition allowed
R. Subhash Reddy, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in not registering and releasing the document presented by the first pettioner in relation to the land admeasuring Acs. 11.95 cents in Survey No. 6 of Tukiwakam Village of Renigunta Mandal in Chittoor District basing on the letters in Rc. No. KGT-31/2007, dated 26.12.2007, Rc. NoN1/34576/2007, dated 11.12.2008 and Rc. No. N1/27520/2009 dated 19.4.2010 addressed by the respondents 3 and 5 as illegal and arbitrary, and contrary to the provision of the Registration Act, 1908.
2. The case of the petitioner is as under:
Sri Kandala Govindacharyula Trust, Gopalapuram Matam, Chinna Bazar Street, Tirupati (hereafter, the Trust) is purely a private trust. It was endowed with the land admeasuring Acs. 29.85 cents in Survey No. 6 situated at Tukiwakam Village of Renigunta Mandal in Chittoor District (hereafter, the Trust land). The trustees of the Trust passed a resolution dated 30.6.1981 authorising Sri Kandala Vijaya Raghavan (hereafter, the Life Trustee) to execute sale-deeds in respect of the Trust land in favour of various persons. Sri Konneti Natarajan Mudaliar, who is the father of the first petitioner, purchased an extent of Acs. 11.95 cents covered by Survey No. 6 situated at Tukiwakam Village of Renigunta Mandal in Chittoor District (hereafter. the subject land) forming part of the Trust land, by separate registered sale-deeds. He purchased an extent of Acs. 10.00 through registered document bearing No. 7677 of 1981, dated 29.12.1981; an extent of Acs. 1.20 cents through registered document bearing No. 1138 of 1983, dated 21.2.1983; and an extent of Acs.0.75 cents through registered document No. 3993 of 1985, dated 21.6.1985. Sri Mudaliar had become absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. It is stated that after demise of his father on 2.7.1997, the first petitioner is in continuous and uninterrupted possession and also perfected his title to the subject land. The Trust land, excluding the subject land, was sold to third parties and the said lands were divided into house plots. About hundred houses have come in that area and it has now become a residential colony.
3. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that the entire Trust land covered by Survey No.6 had been sold to Sri Natarajan Mudaliar and others.
4. After death of his father on 2.7.1997, the first petitioner offered to sell the land to petitioners 2 to 5 and they have entered into agreements of sale dated 10.3.2010, 24.2.2011 and 25.1.2012. The petitioners 2 to 5 have paid substantial amounts to the first petitioner towards part consideration. When they have approached the first respondent-Sub-Registrar, Renigunta for registration of regular sale-deeds, he informed them that the subject land is shown in the list of properties prohibited for registration, in view of the letter Rc. No. KGT-3/2007, dated 26.12.2007 addressed by the fifth respondent to the first respondent.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that the Trust was originally registered on 9.7.1898 vide document No. 851 of 1898 and it was brought under section 6 (c) (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereafter, the Act 30 of 1987) on 13.4.1995 and the Trust was handed over to the Endowments ‘Department on 9.12.1996. An Executive Officer was appointed to represent the Trust and in such representative capacity he has addressed letter dated 26.12.2007 to the first respondent not to allow any transaction in respect of the lands covered by Survey No.6 i.e. the Trust land. The petitioners contend that there is no valid reason for inclusion of subject land in the list of properties prohibited for registration as the father of the first petitioner purchased the subject land through registered sale-deeds in 1981, 1983 and 1985. The remaining lands in Survey No.6 were sold to the third parties. There was
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.