Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 35 (AP)

Gamya Karanam Madhu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-03-07

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

body2019
ORDER : M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking verbatim the following relief: "...to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in not releasing the P.248 of 2018 dated 29.6.2018 and P.249 of 2018 date 30.6.2018 even after registration of the sale deed and mortgage deed pertaining to the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to release registered sale deed to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though no counter has been filed by the official respondents, learned Government Pleader appearing for the said respondents orally resisted the writ petition, based on the written instructions, dated 29.1.2019, a copy of which is placed on record. I have perused the material record. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is this: 'One Muniamma was the owner of the house property bearing Municipal Door Nos. 18-697, 698 & 699 admeasuring 115 Sq. yards situated at Muthu Mestry Street, Chittoor Town. The petitioner purchased the said property form the said Muniamma for a valuable consideration of Rs. 95,00,000/- after availing loan from M/s. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited ('DHFL'). The petitioner paid huge stamp duty of Rs. 4,74,100/-, vide challan, dated 14.6.2018. The petitioner paid transfer duty of Rs. 1,42,500/- & Rs. 19,000/- vide challans, dated 14.6.2018 and 29.6.2018. She had also paid registration fee of Rs. 95,000/- vide challan, dated 14.6.2018, alongwith user charges of Rs. 250/- for registration of the sale deed executed by the said vendor in favour of the petitioner. When the document is presented for registration before the 4th respondent-Joint Sub-Registrar, Chittoor, necessary receipt and presentation No. 248 of 2018 were generated. However, the respondents did not release the document till date even after registration of the sale deed. The respondents also did not release the mortgage deed, which is related to the mortgage transaction in favour of the creditor. However, the respondents did not release the document till date even after registration of the sale deed. The respondents also did not release the mortgage deed, which is related to the mortgage transaction in favour of the creditor. When the petitioner made enquiries, she came to know that the son of the vendor filed a suit for partition against the vendor and that a civil Court passed orders not to alienate the property. However, as per the settled law, registration of a document cannot be stopped by the registration authorities for whatever reasons. The mere pendency of a partition suit does not prevent either the vendor from executing a registered sale deed or the purchaser from obtaining a registered sale deed. Since the property was purchased by availing loan from M/s. DHFL, the officers of the said Finance Company are harassing the petitioner for submitting house property sale deed and deed of mortgage; and, though the petitioner was not at fault, they are threatening the petitioner by stating that the petitioner has to face prosecution. The sale deed, after its registration has to be submitted to the Financier as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. Further, the memorandum of mortgage executed in favour of M/s. DHFL is also pending before the 4th respondent for registration; vide P.249/2018, dated 30.6.2018. The petitioner, who is a purchaser, is not a party to the litigation between the vendor and her son. Hence, the respondents ought to have released the sale deed and the mortgage deed. Hence, the present writ petition if filed' 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, having reiterated the pleaded case of the petitioner, submits that the property is not admittedly in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and that the sale deed as well as the mortgage deed are being withheld without being released, merely because a suit for partition filed by the son of the vendor is pending and that in that suit an injunction is granted restraining the vendor from alienating the property. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted as follows: 'The document Nos. P.248 & P.249 were presented for registration before the 4th respondent-Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Chittoor, on 29.6.2018 & 30.6.2018, respectively. 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted as follows: 'The document Nos. P.248 & P.249 were presented for registration before the 4th respondent-Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Chittoor, on 29.6.2018 & 30.6.2018, respectively. The Presiding Officer of the Vacation Court/District Court, Chittoor, passed orders, dated 28.5.2018, in IA No. 260 of 2018 in OS No. 95 of 2018 restraining the respondent in the said suit from alienating the subject property. As per Standing Order 219(b) of the Registration Manual Part-II, the registration of the above documents was kept pending. Further, the regular Presiding Officer of the VIII Additional District Court, Chittoor, made absolute, the order of interim injunction granted in the aforesaid suit. Hence, registration of the documents is kept pending. If the petitioner wants the documents to be registered, she has to approach the civil Court and get the injunction orders vacated. Having knowledge of the interim injunction orders, if the subject documents are registered & or released, the vendor as well as the petitioner would be exposing themselves for action for contempt/violation of the orders of temporary injunction granted by a civil Court. Further, the petitioner did not implead the son of the vendor, who filed the suit against her as a party respondent to the writ petition, though the petitioner is seeking a relief, which if granted affects the rights of the said person. The registration of the documents would be aiding the parties to the suit as well as the petitioner herein to violate the injunction orders not to alienate the property, granted by a competent civil Court. If the Joint Sub-Registrar concerned registers the documents and/or releases the same, he may also be exposed to the allegations that he had violated the injunction orders granted by a competent civil Court, having knowledge of the same. Hence, in the facts & circumstances, the Joint Sub-Registrar is justified in not registering and releasing the documents bearing Nos. P.248 & P.249.' 6. Since, on written instructions, the learned Government Pleader stated that the documents are pending registration, a clarification was sought as to whether the documents were registered and are not being released or whether the documents are kept pending even without registering the same. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to clarify the position. He stated that he is also not aware of the actual position. 7. I have given earnest consideration to the facts & submissions. 8. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to clarify the position. He stated that he is also not aware of the actual position. 7. I have given earnest consideration to the facts & submissions. 8. It is fairly conceded that the civil Court's injunction orders referred to above are in force. It is settled law that a Court while exercising a judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order, which if passed, would make the parties to the lis or a third party to violate a lawful order passed by another Court. No public servant shall perform an act, which if performed, would result in encouraging a party to the lis to violate a lawful order of a Court. Therefore, the Joint Sub-Registrar concerned is justified in keeping the registration/and or release of the subject documents with numbers P.248 & P.249 pending. As long as the above said injunction orders are in operation, the petitioner cannot seek the relief claimed in the writ petition by invoking the equity jurisdiction of this Court. Doctrine of comity or amity requires this Court not to pass an order, which comes in conflict with the injunction orders passed by a competent Court of law. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.