ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. Heard Sri K.Bhimanna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration for the respondents. 2. Notice in respect of the respondents 6 to 9 is dispensed with, since no adverse order is passed affecting their rights and interests. 3. The above writ petition has been filed to declare the action of respondents in permitting the registration of documents and incorporation of entries in revenue records submitted by the unofficial respondents in respect of the agricultural lands of an extent of Ac.5.70 cents in Sy.No.370/C; Ac.5.69 cents in Sy.No.370/D; Ac.11.71 cents in Sy.No.371/1; Ac.1.61 cents in Sy.No.582/A; Ac.7.92 cents in Sy.No.583/A; Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No.247/B and Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.247/C situated at Havaligi Village, Vidapanakal Mandal, Anantapuram District, despite the cancellation deed document No.1225 of 1993, dated 04.08.1993, in respect of Gift deed document No.586 of 1957, as illegal arbitrary. 4. One K.Sarabanna was the absolute owner of the aforementioned lands, and they are his ancestral properties. K.Eramma and K.Sarabanna are wife and husband, and they have no issues. K.Sarabanna died intestate in the year 1954, leaving behind him his wife, K.Eramma. The said K.Eramma executed a gift deed in favour of Sivappa, S/o Veerabhadrappa, vide document No.586 of 1957, with a condition that the latter has to look after the welfare of the executants. K.Veeramma filed suit O.S.No.113 of 1989 on the file of Munsif Court, Uravakonda, for cancellation of the gift deed dated 01.05.1957, document No.586 of 1957. The said suit was dismissed on the grounds of limitation by judgment and decree dated 07.10.1991. Later, the donor revoked the said gift deed vide document No.1225 of 1993 and later died intestate on 27.04.1999. The petitioners, heirs of K.Sarabanna, husband of K.Veeramma, came into possession of the subject lands. A registered partition deed was executed vide document No.13775 of 2018 dated 10.10.2018. The 6 th respondent, daughter of Sivappa, based on the gift deed dated 01.05.1957, executed unregistered sale deeds in favour of respondents 7 to 9. Neither the name of Sivappa nor the names of Veerabhadrappa and the 6 th respondent are mutated in the record of rights. Notice was issued to the registering authority not to entertain the document. However, the registering authority is registering the documents, and hence, the above writ petition has been filed. 5. Neither the name of Sivappa nor the names of Veerabhadrappa and the 6 th respondent are mutated in the record of rights. Notice was issued to the registering authority not to entertain the document. However, the registering authority is registering the documents, and hence, the above writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued, reiterating the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable vis- à-vis the reliefs sought. He would also submit that unless and until a restraint order is passed by the competent civil Court or the properties are included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 or any other restraint order from the competent authority, the registering authority needs to entertain the document. The petitioners, without exhausting the remedies before the appropriate forum, filed the writ petition. 7. A perusal of the averments in the affidavit, as well as contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, would disclose that the 6 th respondent, without having any title, is alienating certain properties in favour of respondents 7 to 9. Whether the 6 th respondent owns the aforementioned properties or not, being a disputed question of fact, in the considered opinion of this Court, may not be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioners should have invoked the private law remedy by approaching the competent Civil Court to redress their grievance. Unless and until a restraint order is passed by the Civil Court regarding alienation, or the properties are included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 , normally, the registering authority cannot refuse to receive and process the documents presented, of course, subject to fulfillment of the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908 . 9. In Paragraph 2 of the affidavit, the name of the original owner is mentioned as K.Eramma, W/o Sarabanna. In Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the name of the owner is mentioned as K.Veeramma. The discrepancy was not explained by the learned counsel. 10. 9. In Paragraph 2 of the affidavit, the name of the original owner is mentioned as K.Eramma, W/o Sarabanna. In Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit, the name of the owner is mentioned as K.Veeramma. The discrepancy was not explained by the learned counsel. 10. It is settled law that to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , one must satisfy infringement of right, be it legal or statutory, and a corresponding legal obligation on the part of the respondent. Thus, the existence of legal rights is a sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 11. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others , [ (1996) 9 SCC 309 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: "10. ... Under the Constitution, a Mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition." 12. In Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra , [ (2004) 2 SCC 150 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered a similar issue and held that for issuing a Writ of Mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a Writ of Mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 13. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain , [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] , the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity to establish the existence of legal right and its infringement for the grant of Writ of Mandamus referred the principles stated in the Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr. 14. In Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana , [ AIR 1977 SC 276 ] , while considering scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “9. 14. In Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana , [ AIR 1977 SC 276 ] , while considering scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “9. … It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a Mandamus without a legal right there must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol I, paragraph 122); State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander AIR 1973 SC 2216 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan, Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed , AIR 1976 SC 578 ) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198." 15. Given the above jurisprudential jurimetrics, since the petitioners failed to satisfy the Court regarding infringement of their right and corresponding legal obligation on the part of the respondent authorities, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.