Smt. Venu Muddala Naga lakshmi, Wo v. Upender Reddy, Age

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.R.SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI M.KESAV YADAV The Court made the following ORDER 7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PDTITION No.28965 OF 2024 Date: 16.12 .2o25 Between: Smt. Venu Muddala Naga Lakshmi ..,Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps ald Registration) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & four others ...Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri K.R.Srikanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing lor 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 pe titioner is questioning the action of the respondent a SK'J W.P.No.28965 of 2025 - No.3 in registering the Gift Deed No.17 129 12024, dated 28.06.2024 and Salc Deed No.246'2912024, dated

20.O9.2024 on the lile 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 l5O square yards irr Sy.No. 192, 193 and 194, situated at Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapr-rr Municipality ancl Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (hereafter referred as "subject property").

3. Learncd Counsel lor thc pctitioner further submits that the petitioner is the absolute owtler and peacelul possessor ol subject property, having purchased the same through a registered Sale Deed No.SOSO 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 a-ll. Earlier one Sri Venumuddala Upender Reddy executed sale deed 3 SK,J W.P.No.2a965 ot 2025 in favour of respondent No.4 herein vide registered sa-le deed No.78431 l99O dated 20.09.1990 on the file of SRO, Medchai and due to dillerence 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.7843ll99O dated 2O.09.1990, hence approached the then SRO, Medchal and presented the document for cancellation of sa-le deed in pending document No.P163/ 1993 dated 24.O8.1993. Thereafter, the same was released vide document No.6420/1995 dated 24.08.1995. The petitioner purchased the property and the same 'vvas initially registered as Document No.P164/ 1993 and the said document was registered vide document No.5050 11995 dated 27.05.1995. From the date of execution, the petitioner is in possession of the property.

4. Learned Counsel lor 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 ]- 4 SK.J W.P.No.28965 of 2025 respondent No.S basing on the document which was already cancelled (vide document No.7843/1990 dated

13.08. 1990) in the year, 1995 vide document No.642011995 dated 24.O8.1995. The respondent No.3 without iooking 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.l7 l29/2024 dated 2,8.06.2024. 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.4O7 /2024 dated 2O.O7.2024 on the file of SHO, Suraram under Section 42O of IPC. In spite of filing criminal case and complaints, the respondent No.5 executed sale deed 1n favour of the respondent No.6 and the same was permitted by the respondent No.3 vide document No.24629 12024 dated 2O.O9.2O24. The said action of the respondent No.3 is arbitrarSr and illegal and the document executed by the 5 SK,J W.P.No.28965 of 2025 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.47O/2O19 dated 03.08.2019 on the file of SHO, Kukatpally and FIR No.528/2019 dated 09.O8.2O19 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 lor perpetual injunction 1n O.S.No.643/2O24 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.O2.2025 on the file of PS Petbasheerabad uncler 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 SK,J W.P.No.28965 ot 2025

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 flacts, tl-re Registering Authority registered the Gilt Deed No.l7 129 12024 dated 28.06.2024 and Sale Deed No.24269/2024, dated 2O.O9.2O24. 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.l7l29l2024 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 belore this Court and the respondent No.6 appeared through his Counsel but did not choose to file coullter till today in spite of severa-l opportunities and not denied the submission made by the writ petitioner in the writ afhdavit. 7 7 SK,J W.P.No.28965 of 2025

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, dated27.O5. 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.O9.1990 on the file of SRO, Medchal. Thereafter, the said documcnt was carcelled by both the parties and the sarne was registered AS pending document No.P163/ 1993 dated 24.08.1993 and the same was released vide document No.642O / 1995 dated

24.O8.1995. In spite ol cancellation of the said document, the respondent No.4 herein has presented the document of Gift Deed in lavour of the respondent No.S for the subject property. The same was registered as Document No.l7 129 12024 dated 28.06.2024. Basing on the Document No.784311990 dated 13.08.1990, which was cancelled IN registered Document No.642Ol 1995 dated 24.08. 1995, the respondent No.4 has presented the 8 SK,J W.P.No.28965 oI 2025 - Gift Deed. Basing on the Gilt Deed executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the respondent No.S, the respondent No.5 executed the Sale Deed in lavour of the respondent No.6 vide Document No.24629/2024 dated

20.o9.2024.

9. In spite of severa-l adjournments, the respondent No.6 tailed 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. Thc 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.642O/1995 dated 24.08.7995. 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 9 SK,J W.P.No.28965 of 2025 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 a,re 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.4O7/ 2024 dated 20.O7 .2024 on the file of SHO Suraram under Section 42O of IPC. The respondent No.6 filed O.S.No.643 ol 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 2l .1O.2O24. The husband of the petitioner has filed criminal case against the respondent No.6 in FIR No.24512025 dated 12.O2.2025 on the file of PS Petbasheerabad under Section 329(31, 324(41, 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 SK'J W.P.No.28965 of 2O25 -E also the registration of the crimes against them. Admittedly, the offlcia-l respondents have admitted that the registratron of the Gift Deed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the respondent No.S was basing on the cancelled docurncnts. In view of the sarne, the impugned document executed by the respondent No.4 in lavour of the respondent No.5 and consequential document executed 1n favour of the respondent No.6 by the respondent No.5 are liable to be calcelled. L2. In view- ol the above findings, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the Gilt Deed Document No.L7 129/2024, dated 2a.O6.2O24 and the Sa,le Deed No.24629 /2024, dated 2O.O9.2024 on the file of the SRO, Quthbullapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and also directing the respondent No.3 not to make lurther registration for Plot bearing No.48/B admeasuring 150 squa-re yards open plot 1n Sy.No.192, 193 and 194, situated at Jeeclimetla Village, Quthbullapur Municipality and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District basing on the cancellation of the Gift Deed Document No.17129/2024, r1 SK,J W.P.No.28965 ot 2025 dated 28.06.2024 and the Sa-le Deed No.2462912O24, dated 20.09.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequei, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. /iTRUE COPY// SD/. C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To '1. The Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Slcretariat Building, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. -,/ Reddy District, Hyderabad.

2. The District Registrar, District Collector, Medchal- Malkajgiri District @ Ranga 3. The Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur Mandal, N/edchal- Malkajgiri District. 4. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

5. One CC to SRI K.R.SRIKANTH, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI M.KESAV YADAV, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SA GJP (,vh' \?.(_./ /\ I , HIGH COURT DATED:1611212025 ORDER WP.No.28965 of 2024 '( Ii 10 rEB zu6 * c)5 * ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \o 0,lrg \i,tr