SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 661

C. SUMALATHA
M Anajn Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Sathakarni.K, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the light of the limited relief sought for, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6 is felt not necessary.

2. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, what could be perceived is that respondent No.5 presented an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in respect of Plot No.43, admeasuring 300 square yards, which is located in Sy.No.148 of Sahebnagar Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, for registration before respondent No.4- Sub-Registrar, Vanasthalipuram, Rangareddy District; The petitioner, who claims to be the lawful owner of the said property, gave a representation to the 4th respondent-SubRegistrar, Vanasthalipuram, seeking him to stop registration; The Sub-Registrar, Vanasthalipuram, gave reply stating that there is no provision under the Registration Act, enabling the Registering Officer to stop the registration or to cancel a registered document. Aggrieved b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top