Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1839 (TS)

Venu Muddala Naga Lakshmi v. State of Telangana

2025-12-16

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri K.R.Srikanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the official respondents and Sri M.Kesav Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in registering the Gift Deed No.17129/2024, dated 28.06.2024 and Sale Deed No.24629/2024, dated 20.09.2024 on the file of the SRO, Quthbullapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as illegal and arbitrary and requested to direct the respondents not to make any further registration of the open Plot bearing No.48/B admeasuring 150 square yards in Sy.No.192, 193 and 194, situated at Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Municipality and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (hereafter referred as “subject property”). 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of subject property, having purchased the same through a registered Sale Deed No.5050 of 1995, dated 27.05.1995 from one Sri T.Narahari Rao and three others through the GPA holder of said Sri T.Narahari Rao by GPA No.464, dated 22.07.1987. The petitioner was put in possession of the said property since the date of her purchase by the knowledge of one and all. Earlier one Sri Venumuddala Upender Reddy executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.4 herein vide registered sale deed No.7843/1990 dated 20.09.1990 on the file of SRO, Medchal and due to difference arose between the above said Sri Venumuddala Upender Reddy and the respondent No.4 and due to nonpayment of sale consideration in the year, 1993 both the parties decided to cancel the sale deed No.7843/1990 dated 20.09.1990, hence approached the then SRO, Medchal and presented the document for cancellation of sale deed in pending document No.P163/1993 dated 24.08.1993. Thereafter, the same was released vide document No.6420/1995 dated 24.08.1995. The petitioner purchased the property and the same was initially registered as Document No.P164/1993 and the said document was registered vide document No.5050/1995 dated 27.05.1995. From the date of execution, the petitioner is in possession of the property. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 28.06.2024, the respondent No.4 approached the respondent No.3 to execute the gift deed in favour of the respondent No.5 basing on the document which was already cancelled (vide document No.7843/1990 dated 13.08.1990) in the year, 1995 vide document No.6420/1995 dated 24.08.1995. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 28.06.2024, the respondent No.4 approached the respondent No.3 to execute the gift deed in favour of the respondent No.5 basing on the document which was already cancelled (vide document No.7843/1990 dated 13.08.1990) in the year, 1995 vide document No.6420/1995 dated 24.08.1995. The respondent No.3 without looking on the last page of the said document, had registered the document presented by the respondent No.4 in favour of the respondent No.5 vide Gift Deed document No.17129/2024 dated 28.06.2024. Immediately, the petitioner approached the authorities and questioned the same and filed representations. Thereafter, the petitioner also made complaint to the Police against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the same was registered in FIR No.407/2024 dated 20.07.2024 on the file of SHO, Suraram under Section 420 of IPC. In spite of filing criminal case and complaints, the respondent No.5 executed sale deed in favour of the respondent No.6 and the same was permitted by the respondent No.3 vide document No.24629/2024 dated 20.09.2024. The said action of the respondent No.3 is arbitrary and illegal and the document executed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 is liable to be set aside. The respondent No.4 is a habitual of creating fabricated documents and litigation between parties and other cases were already filed against the respondent No.4 in FIR No.470/2019 dated 03.08.2019 on the file of SHO, Kukatpally and FIR No.528/2019 dated 09.08.2019 on the file of SHO, Jagatgirigutta. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 has filed suit against the husband of the petitioner for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.643/2024 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Medchal and the same was dismissed as not pressed on 21.10.2024 and also the husband of the petitioner filed complaint against the respondent No.6 in FIR No.245/2025 dated 12.02.2025 on the file of PS Petbasheerabad under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) BNS while the respondent No.6 is trespassing the suit schedule property and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned document. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.3 submits that in view of non-disclosure of the facts, the Registering Authority registered the Gift Deed No.17129/2024 dated 28.06.2024 and Sale Deed No.24269/2024, dated 20.09.2024. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.3 submits that in view of non-disclosure of the facts, the Registering Authority registered the Gift Deed No.17129/2024 dated 28.06.2024 and Sale Deed No.24269/2024, dated 20.09.2024. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 would have brought to the notice of the then Sub-Registrar about the cancellation of document and the registration of Gift Deed No.17129/2024 dated 28.06.2024 was not permissible to entertain for registration. In view of non- disclosure of facts, the respondent No.3 has acted as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and requested to pass appropriate orders. 7. In spite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 before this Court and the respondent No.6 appeared through his Counsel but did not choose to file counter till today in spite of several opportunities and not denied the submission made by the writ petitioner in the writ affidavit. 8. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has purchased the subject property through a registered Sale Deed No.5050 of 1995, dated 27.05.1995. Initially the respondent No.4 has purchased the subject property from one Sri Venumuddala Upender Reddy and registered the document vide Sale Deed No.7843/1990 dated 20.09.1990 on the file of SRO, Medchal. Thereafter, the said document was cancelled by both the parties and the same was registered as pending document No.P163/1993 dated 24.08.1993 and the same was released vide document No.6420/1995 dated 24.08.1995. In spite of cancellation of the said document, the respondent No.4 herein has presented the document of Gift Deed in favour of the respondent No.5 for the subject property. The same was registered as Document No.17129/2024 dated 28.06.2024. Basing on the Document No.7843/1990 dated 13.08.1990, which was cancelled in registered Document No.6420/1995 dated 24.08.1995, the respondent No.4 has presented the Gift Deed. Basing on the Gift Deed executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the respondent No.5, the respondent No.5 executed the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent No.6 vide Document No.24629/2024 dated 20.09.2024. 9. In spite of several adjournments, the respondent No.6 failed to file counter. It seems that the respondent No.6 is not choosing to deny the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. 9. In spite of several adjournments, the respondent No.6 failed to file counter. It seems that the respondent No.6 is not choosing to deny the averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. The official respondents in their counter has categorically stated that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not brought to the notice of the Sub- Registrar about the cancellation of the Document vide Document No.6420/1995 dated 24.08.1995. If the same was brought to the notice of the Sub-Registrar, the said document would not have been registered and they have admitted their mistake while registering the impugned documents. 10. It clearly shows that the respondent No.4 in spite of cancellation of the document in the year, 1995, without disclosing the same and without bringing to the notice of the Sub-Registrar, has executed the Gift Deed in favour of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 in turn registered the document in favour of the respondent No.6. Moreover, the contention of the petitioner is that there are number of criminal cases against the respondent No.4 in various Police Stations and also the petitioner filed complaint against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in FIR No.407/2024 dated 20.07.2024 on the file of SHO Suraram under Section 420 of IPC. The respondent No.6 filed O.S.No.643 of 2024 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Medchal for perpetual injunction against the husband of the petitioner and the same was dismissed as not pressed on 21.10.2024. The husband of the petitioner has filed criminal case against the respondent No.6 in FIR No.245/2025 dated 12.02.2025 on the file of PS Petbasheerabad under Section 329(3), 324(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) BNS while the respondent No.6 is trespassing the suit schedule property. 11. It clearly shows that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 are not denying the averments made by the petitioner and also the registration of the crimes against them. Admittedly, the official respondents have admitted that the registration of the Gift Deed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the respondent No.5 was basing on the cancelled documents. In view of the same, the impugned document executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the respondent No.5 and consequential document executed in favour of the respondent No.6 by the respondent No.5 are liable to be cancelled. 12. In view of the same, the impugned document executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the respondent No.5 and consequential document executed in favour of the respondent No.6 by the respondent No.5 are liable to be cancelled. 12. In view of the above findings, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the Gift Deed Document No.17129/2024, dated 28.06.2024 and the Sale Deed No.24629/2024, dated 20.09.2024 on the file of the SRO, Quthbullapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and also directing the respondent No.3 not to make further registration for Plot bearing No.48/B admeasuring 150 square yards open plot in Sy.No.192, 193 and 194, situated at Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Municipality and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District basing on the cancellation of the Gift Deed Document No.17129/2024, dated 28.06.2024 and the Sale Deed No.24629/2024, dated 20.09.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.