ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondents 2 to 4 on petitioners requisition dated 26.09.2021 submitted for recording in the list of properties prohibited for Registration in terms of Standing order 219 of Andhra Pradesh Registration Manual under Andhra Pradesh rules under Registration Act 1908 and not to entertain any deed of conveyance for registration being maintained by respondents 1 to 4 and for prevention of alienation to third parties by respondents 5 to 12 connected to the landed properties admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.No.89 and 90 of Yerragondapalem Revenue Village and Mandal of Prakasam District in obedience to Temporary Injunction order dated 18.03.2008 in I.A.No.449/2008 in O.S.No.22/2008 passed by the Hon‟ble Court of Judge Family Court at Ongole as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, rules, regulations and standing orders framed there under and offends Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to entertain registration of any deeds of conveyance connected to aforesaid property and pass…”

This Court has heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, Assignment for the official respondents and Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, for the unofficial respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues in line with what is stated in the writ affidavit. The petitioner before this Court entered into an agreement of sale with regard to land measuring Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.Nos.89 and 90 of Yerragondapalem Village with one V.V.Subbaiah. A suit O.S.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the 7th Additional District Judge, Ongole, for specific performance was filed for enforcement of the agreement of sale dated 23.10.2006. In the suit, I.A.No.449 of 2008 was filed by him and the Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant in the suit from alienating the suit schedule property. The injunction was extended till further orders. Even though the trial commenced in the suit, as the defendant did not cross- examine the witnesses, an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 23.09.2010. On that day the trial Court “closed” the interim application. Thereafter, an application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree and also an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The ex parte decree was set aside and the legal representatives were also brought on record. It transpires that the ex parte decree was set aside on 04.03.2021 but nothing was expressly mentioned about the injunction. Later, three sale deeds were executed by the Legal Representatives in July, 2021 in favour of the unofficial respondents in the Writ.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the injunction is restored and is binding on the legal heirs of the deceased original defendant and the sales by the legal representatives (respondent Nos.5 to 9) in favour of third parties/respondent Nos.10 and 11 are illegal and contrary to the order of the Court. Learned counsel also argues that once a Court of competent jurisdiction grants an interim order and the registration authorities are made aware of the same, they have to stop all further registrations. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the interim order which is granted in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff in the suit) is closed and that therefore, the alienations made are not correct and that the subsequent actions of the unofficial respondents in trying to alienate the property are contrary to law. The writ petition is therefore filed seeking a direction to the official respondents to take note of the interim order passed in the suit and to stop all further registrations proposed by the respondents

10/11.

In reply to