Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.
Jakkana Lakshmaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps & Registration Department – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19661 of 2019
Decided on : 13-09-2019
Civil Law – Order of attachment of immovable property passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1,in R.C.No.267 of 2016 in O.A.No.722 of 2014, submit that there is restraint order with respect to house and petitioner not a party to said proceedings, as such said order is restricted to parties from transferring or charging property, and therefore, there cannot be any hindrance to respondent-3 to register document said to have been presented by petitioner – Held, Petitioner asserts that restraint order passed by Tribunal is only with respect to parties mentioned therein – This Court cannot ignore fact that such restraint order in relation to subject property – When there is judicial order restraining registration, this Court cannot ignore said order and direct Registering Officer to violate order of another judicial forum though it is subordinate to this Court in all respects – Petition dismissed (Paras: 4 & 6)
Facts of the case:
Order of attachment of immovable property passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1,in R.C.No.267 of 2016 in O.A.No.722 of 2014, submit that there is restraint order with respect to house and petitioner not a party to said proceedings, as such said order is restricted to parties from transferring or charging property, and therefore, there cannot be any hindrance to respondent-3 to register document said to have been presented by petitioner
Findings of the court:
Petitioner asserts that restraint order passed by Tribunal is only with respect to parties mentioned therein – This Court cannot ignore fact that such restraint order in relation to subject property – When there is judicial order restraining registration, this Court cannot ignore said order and direct Registering Officer to violate order of another judicial forum though it is subordinate to this Court in all respects
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. In this Writ Petition, petitioner’s grievance is that the third respondent – Sub-Registrar, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District, is refusing to register the sale deed presented by him with respect to premises bearing No.1-3-33, 1-3-33/1 (old No.1-98), admeasuring 200 sq.yards, situated at Jammikunta, Karimnagar District, notwithstanding the fact that neither his vendor nor himself is a party to the proceedings in R.C.No.267 of 2016 in O.A.No.722 of 2014.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by making a reference to the order of attachment of immovable property dated 02.02.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Hyderabad, in R.C.No.267 of 2016 in O.A.No.722 of 2014, would submit that there is a restraint order with respect to house bearing No.1-3-33 and 1-3-33/1, admeasuring 200 sq.yards, at Main Road, Jammikunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, and that the petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings, as such, the said order is restricted to the parties therein from transferring or charging the property, and therefore, there cannot be any hindrance to the third respondent to register the document said to have been presented by the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents would bring to the notice of this Court S.O.No.219(b) issued by the Government vide Memo No.2722/U2/70-4, Revenue, dated 17.11.1970, and it reads as under:
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the restraint order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is only with respect to the parties mentioned therein, this Court cannot ignore the fact that such restraint order is in relation to the subject property. When there is a judicial order restraining registration, this Court cannot ignore the said order and direct the Registering Officer to violate the order of another judicial forum though it is subordinate to this Court in all respects.
5. In those circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for getting the order of attachment of immovable property dated 02.02.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribuinal-1, Hyderabad, varied/modified.
7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
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.
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
