Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
UJJAL BHUYAN, C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, JJ.
Smt. M.Suchitra @ Tummalacherla Suchitra, W/o. T.L.Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Singi Reddy Laxmi, W/o. Sri S.Malla Reddy & others - Respondents
W.A.No.796 of 2022
Decided on : 08-12-2022
Standing Order 219 - Registration of Sale Deeds in Violation of Injunction Orders - [PROPERTY LAW] - [Standing Order 219, Civil Procedure Code] - The court discussed the application of Standing Order 219, which restrains the registering authority from registering any sale deed in the event of an injunction order from any court of law. The court emphasized that the Standing Order sub-serves a greater public interest by preventing vexatious litigation and third party claims during the pendency of a civil suit with an injunction order in force.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed interlocutory applications to vacate an interim order that restrained the registering authority from registering sale deeds in violation of injunction orders. The appellants argued that they were not parties to the civil suit and therefore the injunction order obtained by the respondents would not be binding on them. The respondents contended that the registering authority should not entertain registration requests for the properties subject to the civil suit and the injunction order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registering authority is bound to comply with orders of the competent court granting injunction in respect of the property for which the sale deed is sought to be registered. The court declined to interfere with the order and dismissed the writ appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the registering authority should entertain registration requests for properties subject to a civil suit and an injunction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registering authority is bound to comply with orders of the competent court granting injunction in respect of the property for which the sale deed is sought to be registered. The court emphasized the application of Standing Order 219, which sub-serves a greater public interest by preventing vexatious litigation and third party claims during the pendency of a civil suit with an injunction order in force.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Heard Mr. Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. C.Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3; and Mr. P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for respondent Nos.4 to 7.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.Nos.4 to 6 of 2022 in Writ Petition No.12701 of 2021 rejecting the stay vacate petitions of the appellants.
3. We may mention that respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 as writ petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.12701 of 2021. Initially appellants were not arrayed as parties therein. Subsequently, they got themselves impleaded as respondent Nos.18 to 21.
4. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 have filed the related writ petition seeking the following relief:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in entertaining and registering the sale deeds and other conveyance deeds in favour of prospective purchasers in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.120-Adm.Ac.5.15gts, Sy.No.121-Adm. Ac.5.02 gts, Sy.No.122-Adm.Ac.2.04gts, Sy. No.123-Adm.Ac.1.31gts, Sy.No.124/1 Adm-Ac.0.22gts, Sy.No.124/2-Adm.Ac.0.02gts, Sy.No.125-Adm.Ac.1.16gts, Sy. No.126-Adm.Ac.0.38gts, Sy.No.127-Adm.Ac.1.13gts, Sy.No. 139-adm.Ac.15.08gts, Sy.No.140, adm.Ac.12.07gts, Sy.No. 141, adm.Ac.7.22gts, Sy.No.155-adm.Ac.13.37gte, Sy.No.156, adm-Ac.6.13gts and Sy.No.157, adm-Ac.20.08gts, totally admeasuring Ac.93.38gts situated at Kuntloor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, despite acknowledging the representation, dated 25.06.2020 (received on 27.07.2020) and 22.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner thereby informing the respondent No.4 about the ad-interim Injunction granted by learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar restraining the respondent Nos.5 to 15 from alienating or transferring the petition schedule “A to C” properties till disposal of the suit in OS.No.383 of 2013 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Standing Order 219(b), the circular memo, dated 10.03.2010 issued by 2nd respondent and also the various orders of this Hon’ble Court including Common Order, dated 23.01.2020 in Wp.Nos.26137,22303,26207 & 26236 of 2019 in the interest of justice and consequently direct the respondent No.4 not to entertain and register any sale-deed/s or conveyance deed/s in respect of the above subject land covered by ad-interim injunction orders in IA.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2013 in OS. No.383 of 2013 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.”
5. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 also filed Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.12701 of 2021 for a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District not to entertain and register any sale deed(s) or conveyance deed(s) in favour of prospective purchasers in respect of the land mentioned above. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 had contended that they have filed O.S.No.383 of 2013 before the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for partition and separate possession of Schedule-A to Schedule-C properties which are part of the above properties; besides seeking mandatory injunction to remove illegal structures thereon. They had filed interlocutory applications being I.A.Nos.1132 & 1133 of 2013 in O.S.No.383 of 2013 wherein civil court passed an order on 01.04.2013 granting ad-interim injunction as prayed for. Thereafter civil court also passed an order providing for police protection to respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 when there was an attempt to violate the injunction order.
6. Grievance made before the learned Single Judge was that notwithstanding such injunction order, several parties notebly respondent Nos.5 to 15 were alienating the conce
AI
The registering authority is bound to comply with orders of the competent court granting injunction in respect of the property for which the sale deed is sought to be registered. The application of S....
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 is that the 3rd respondent should adhere to court orders and standing orders, and should not entertain registration in violation of interim orders.
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has the power to render “substantial justice” between the parties. Due to the “closing” of the application, the plaintiff's rights cannot be defeated.
A registering authority must adhere strictly to judicial orders, and any registration in contravention of such orders is void ab initio.
The court ruled that registration authorities must comply with court orders and cannot refuse registration based on previously set aside grounds.
The SARFAESI Act's provisions override civil court injunctions, allowing secured creditors to enforce their rights despite conflicting orders.
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
