The High Court · 2025

Petitioners: SRI VEDUAL SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/s. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SMT. S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR ANtI REGISTRATION Respcndent No.8: SRI R.ANURAG Respcndent Nos.5 TO 7 & 9 TO 12: - I I I I -t W.P.NO: 41437 OF 2016 Between:

1. Ediga chandrasekar.Gowd, S/o.L^axman Goud, Aged about 49 years, FUo.prot - No.29lD, Lakshmi priya Colony, Opp SBI., tr,tjnitonOa, Hyderab'Jd. - - 2 Kann^e^ga.nti Ramakrishna, s/o.trtarblimha'nio, ngedludut ss v"ars, Rl/o.Frat - No.306, Mount Meru Apartments, Road No.4, Aanjira ftitti, HVO'eraOlO. AND ...PETITIONERS District at Red Hills. District Registrar, Hyderabad District at R-ed Hills. '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamos ^ and Registration) Department, Secretariat Buildings, HyOerabaO. z. I he Commissioner and lnspector General, Stamp-s and Registration ^ p.eOqlment, GovernmentoiTelangana, tvt..t RodO, Hydera6at - - 3 The District Registrar, Stamps and Regiskation Oepaitmeni, Hyderabad + Il.,q Jqilt Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department, Office of the 5. smt.lvinhazunnisa Begum, D/o.Late Mohammed A auddin Khan, Aqed about ^ ?1 ypatq,Ryo-.8-3-231/A/85/C, Sri Krishna Naoar, yousufguOa, Hydeiibad.- 6. Mohiuddin Khan, S/o.Late Allauddin Khan, Giand son ofiate'Ka'reemuOain Khan, Aged about 21 years, Ryo.8-3-231lNBS1C Sri Krishna Nagar, --- Yousufguda, Hyderabad. 7. smt.Fazilathunnisa Begum, D/o.Late Mohd.Kareemuddin Khan, w/o.Viiavath Ali Khan, Aged about 51 years, F/o.20-1-395/4, Kokayi fatii, flussainia'ta'in, Hyderabad. 8. MohamedNajqmuddin Khan, s/o.Late Mohammed Kareemuddin, Aqed about -- ^ !3 ye_arq, No.B-3-2311C185, Sri Krishna Nagar, yousufsuOa, UvObra"OLt. 9. Smt.Sadathunnisa Begum, Dio.Late Moharimed Karedmuddin: AoeO afort .^ 35 years, R/o.p;3;2Q!/p/8S, Sri Krishna Nagar, yousufguda, Hydei;b;d.--- 'l 0. Mohammed Sidd iquiddin Khan, S/o. Late lVl6hammed t<"areemuiiOin. AoLa about 32 years, Rt/o.8-3-231lCl8S, Sri Krishna Nagar, yousufguda, Hyderabad.

11.Aurora Educational Society, (Regd.No.20.1/19S9), i-B-168/2/1, Skeet No.12, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, iep. by its General Se6retary. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under A(icle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in processing and in admitting to registration, the sale deed, dt.18.07.2016 (Registered Document No.3864/16) as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and non-est in the eye of law and consequently set-aside the registration of the said document. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 (WPMP. NO: 51050 OF 2016) Petition under section 15'1 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operatic,n of the sale deed, dt.18.07'2016 (Registered Document No.3864/16)which.ruztsprocessedandadmittedinregistrationbytherespondents 2 and 3, pending disp)sal of writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition unde'r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrlmstances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit filing of (i) <;ocy of order dt. 2210312017 in WP No 24073 ot 2009 (web copy) and (ii) copy cf order dt. O3tO3l2O22 in WA No 611 of 2017 ' ANO:1 OF2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circlmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit effecting Substituted Service on Respondent No 7 in W P No 41437 of 2016,bywayofPape:rPublication,pendingdisposalofmainrrrritpetition' Counsel for the Peti':ioners: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOI? COUNSEL FOR M/s. VEDULA CHITRALEKHT\ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: SMT. S'SRAVANTII|, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.11 : SRI R.ANURAG Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO 10: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER :) THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION Nos.41413 and 4L437 0F 2016 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both writ petitions and Smt. S. Sravanthi, learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and Sri R.Anurag, learned Counsel appearing for contesting unofficial respondent i.e., Aurora Educational Society in both writ petitions. 2, Both matters are pertaining to same sr-rit schedule property and the issue also is one and the same. In view of the same, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of way of this common order.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are questioning the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in processing and admitting to registration, the sale deeds in favour of the contesting c SK,J Vt.P.Nos.47473 & 41437 of 2O16 respondertr; in Document Nos.3g62 of 2076 and 3864 of 20L6, dated 18.O7.2O16 on the file ()i the Joint Sub-Registrar-I. R.O. (OB), Hyderabad. 4, Learned Senior Counsel for the petit.oners further submits thzLt thc respcndent Nos.S to 7 (and others) in W.P.No.4izi l3 of 2Cl6 and the respondent Ncs.5 to 1O (and others) in 'W.P.No.41437 of 20 16 have executc,d a registered Document No.1049 of 2OCT, dated 19.04.2O0g which is an Agreement of Sale-cum-lrrevocable General power of Attorney irL :-elation to ar extent of a322.2 Square yards of land situated in part ol Sy.Nos. 137/1 and, 2, l3a, rcg corr-esponding T.S.No.15, 16, lZ, lA, Ig, 20 anci 3Op of Amberpet, Hl.derabad (for brevity ,,suit schedrle property,,) in favour c,f pctitioners and anothcr. The petitioners paid Rs.56,25,000/- to the executants. The tota,l sale consideration was Rs.2.25 Crores. Though symbolic possession u.as shown to be clelivered, as a nratter of fact, physical pos,session has not been handed over to the petitioners a_nd they have constrained to issue instructions ,a sK,J W.P.Nos.41473 & 47437 oI2076 to stop payment of the amounts due under the cheques that had been issued by them towards the ba_lance sale consideration. Thereafter the vendors of the petitioners unilaterally cancelled the registered document that was executed on 19.O4.2008 by registering a Cancellation Deed No.3247 of 2008, dated 23.12.2OO8. In view of the same, the petitioners approached this Court and frled writ petition and this Court passed interim order in W.P.M.P.No.3l2B9 of 2OO9 in W.P.No.24073 of 2OO9 on 09.I1.2OO9 directing the respondent No.2 therein not to entertain and admit to registration of any document relating to the suit schedule property. The vendors of the petitioners were respondents in the said writ petition. Subsequently, the said interim order granted on 09.71.2OO9 was made absolute by this Court on 13.12.2012.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in spite of interim order passed by this Court, the vendors of the petitioners have executed a registered Sa-le Deed in favour of the contesting respondents vide \ .:.d 4 SK,J W)'.Nos.47473 & 11437 oJ 2O16 Documentlros.3862of2016and3864of2016'dated lB.oT.2oTt,toanextento|9115.79SquareMetersand 167 1.23 Square Meters rcspectively in suit schedurle property an(l the same are covered by the inl.erim order of this Court. The said registration of the doc.rr:nents dated lB.O7.2olb are in blatant vioiation and in utter disregard to the intcrirn order grarted by this Court and also contrary to the StanCing Order No'219(b) and also C:ircular Memo dated 10.03.20 10 issued by the respondent Nc'2' Learr ed Senior Counsei lor the petitioners further 6. submits t-rzlt upon a reference by the respondent No'4' the respond ent No.3 had adjuclicatect the issue of the market value/ stanlp duty payable in relation to the impugned Sale Deeds dated 18.07'2016 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. An order was passed by -he respondent No.3on29.Oa-2Ol6inProceedingsNo'MV/47A1425412016 and the consequential acimission into registration of the said docur:rents is contemptuous and is bleLtantly violative of the diret:tion of this Court dated 09' 1 1'2oog' 5 SI<,J W.P.Nos.41413 &' 47437 oJ 2076 7 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the registering authorities have no option but to refuse to admit the said documents for registration. Without doing so, the respondent No.3 made a statutory adjudication under Section 47-A of the Indiar Stamp Act, 1899 and the respondent No.4 registered the same. The registration of the said documents, being illegal and non-est, is liable to be set aside.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the writ petition fi1ed by the petitioners in W.P.No.25O73 of 2009 was a,llowed on 22.03.2017 by declaring the action of respondent No.2 therein in not issuing notice to the petitioners before registering the Deed doc.No.3247 l2OOB, dated 12.72.2OO8 cancelling the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney as null arrd void and no effect and the same was reported in Ediga Chandrasekor Goutd and another a. State of Andhra t I i 6 sI<,J W.P.Nos.47473 & a 1437 oJ 2016 Pradeshl an(l the same was chalienged belore the Division Bench of this Court by filing W.A.No.611 of 2017 and the said writ Appeal was dismissed by this Court on O3.O3.2O22 arld requested to cancel the registration of the impugned do<:u-ments by allowing the writ petition.

9. Learne<l Serrior Cor:nsei for the petitionet s in support of his conte:ntions has relied on the lollorving Judgments passed in:

1. Suriit Singh and. others u. Harbo'.ns Singh and others2. 2 Asset Reconstruction Compan! (India) Linfited u. S.P.Velaguthq.m and. otherss.

10. On the other hand, learned Counsel altpearing for the contestin6; respondent basing on the cour.ter submits that the corr petent authority to declare an.r registered instrument to be invalid and illegal is the corr.petent Civil Court and not this Court under Article 226 of (lonstitution 20l7 (3) AtT 42O (S.8.) ^' , aIIR 1996 SCC r35 3 l2o22l A SCC 2tO / 7 SI(,J W.P.Nos.47473 & 41437 oJ 2076 of India. As such, the present writ petitions a-re not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Since the validity of an instrument and/ or the effect of an instrument being conveyance of right/ title/ interest is involved between two private individuals, to set aside of such instrument by this Court would not arise as such power is vested exclusiveiy with competent Civil Court.

11. Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent further submits that the petitioner No.1 herein has fiied a suit vide O.S.No.222 of 2Ol7 on the hle of IX-Additionai Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein he has sought for the very sarne relief of declaring the Sale Deed dated 18.07.2016 bearing Document No.3862 of 2016 as null, void amongst other reliefs. The petitioners deliberately suppressed the hling of said suit In view of an existing suit for the very same relief before the competent Civil Court, the present writ petitions are not maintainable and 1iable to be dismissed. The contesting respondent is not a party to W.P.No.24O73 of 2009 and I a sx,J W.I.Nos.47413 & <'.7437 ol 2076 found out abrut the filing of the same through O.S.No.222 of 2018 on ,hc fi1e of the IX Additional Chiel'Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad and the conLesting r{rspondent is not awa-re rf the othe.r contents arld e,rents which transpired in relation thereto. The contesting respondent is a bonafide l)urchaser having purchased the land vide registered fiale deeds after paying vaLuable sale consideratior.'r and purchased the said lani after due enquiries pertaining to titlc, encumbrances anl third party claims with office of the Sub-Registrar. Even the encumbranc€, certificates did not show any entries of prior alienation nrade by the vendors of the contesting respondent and there is no valid ground to intr:rfere by this Court by ca:rcelling registered document in lavour of the contesting respondent as the competent authority to declare any r'egistered instrument to be invalid ar-rd iilegal and requeste I to dismiss the writ petitions.

12. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has relied on the lollowing Judgment passed in 9 srr,J W.P.Nos.41413 & 41437 of 2O76

7. Amudhaoali and. others v. P.Rukum@ni and others4.

13. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the consideied view that the petitioners and another are having an Agreement of Sale cum Irrevocable General Power of Attorney through registered Document No. 1O49/2007, dated 19.04.2008 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, R.O.(OB), Hyderabad for the suit schedule property lrom some of the unofhcial respondents/vendors and others. Thereafter, the vendors of the petitioners unilaterally cancelled the registered document dated 19.04.2008 by registering a Cancellation Deed document No.3247 |2OOB, dated 23.12.2OO8. The said Cancellation Deed was subject matter before this Court in W.P.No.24073 of 2OO9 ard at the stage of admission, this Court passed interim order in W.P.M.P.No.31289 of 2OO9 in W.P.No.24073 of 2009 dated

09.11.2009 by directing the respondent No.3 herein not to 4 (2022l, t7 Sc,C 534 \ 10 SI(,J W.P.Nos.41473 & .11437 of 2016 entertain an(l admit the registration of document relating to the suit sch,rdule property. Thereafter, the said interim order was made absolute on 13.12.2012. In spite of that the vendors cl the petitioners have executed the impugned sale deeds in Document i,,1os.3862 of 2016 and 3864 of 2016, datec. 18.07.2016 in favour of tl-r: contesting respondent lor the property covered the suit schedule property. IrL view of the same, the petitione rs liled both these writ petitions seeking cancellation of saicl documents

14. The contention of the petitioners is thirt in spite of interim order passed by this Court, the resp,rndent Nos.3 ald 4 more particularly respondent I{o.3 issued proceedings under Section 47 -A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for acljtrdicating the issue of the market ,,a1ue/ stamp duty arrd issued proceedings dated 29.08.2016 in Proceedings No.MV/47A 14254/2OL6. In view of the same, the respondr:nt No.4 registered both documents. The said action of the respondents is in violation of the interim order I I r\ 77 sr(,J w,P.Nos.47413 & 41437 oJ 2076 passed by this Court as well as the Standing Order No.219 (b)

15. For better appreciation, Standing Order No.219 (b) of the Registration ald Stamps Department is extracted AS foliows: "S.O.219.(b) If a Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if he still chooses to alienate it, it is he who contravenes the orders of the Court ald not the Registering Ofhcer. If, on the other hand, the Court gives a direction to the Registering ofircer/ registration department, the officer/department is estopped from going ahead with the registration."

16. The relevant portion of the Judgment relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in Asset Reconstruction Compang (India) Limited. u S,P.Velagutham and others (Supra-S) is as follows: "57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for declaration that a registered document is nu1l and void, all the aforesaid three steps which comprise the entire process of execution and registration come under challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a document or the right and title of a i i (i. 72 sx,J W.P.Nos.47473 & 41437 of 2016 person to execute a document and preser I it for registration, his remedy r.r,il1 only be to go tc the civil court. Ilut \^rhere a party questions only thc failure of the lclgisl ering authority to perform his s;Latutor-v duties in the course of the third stcp, it canno be said that the jurisdiction of the F{igh Court under Article 226 stz nds completely ousted This is for thrt reason that tht: writ jurisdiction of the I{igh Court is t,r ensure that stittutory authorities perform [heir duties rvithin the bounds of law.

58. It inust be noted that rirhen a Fligh Court, in exercist of its jurisdiction under Article 226 fi-rds that there rras utter failure on the part of the rerlistering authori,y to stick to the mandate of law, the Court merely cancels the act of registration, but c oes not declale the very execution of the document to be null and v'oid. A declaration that a document is I rull and void, :is cxclusivcly within the domain of the cir il court, but ii does not mean that the High Court cannot examin,: the question whether or not the rellistering authori'.y performed his statutory duties in the malner prescritred by law.

59. It is well scttled that if something is reqrrired by law tc, L,e done in a particular manner, it shalt be done only 1n that manner and not otherwise. trx,Lmining whether the registering authority did something in the manner rcquired by law or otherwise is certainlr within the ju risdiction of the High Court under Artir:1e 226. 73 sr(,J W.P.Nos.47473 & 41437 oJ 2076 However, it is needless to say that the High Courts may refuse to exercise jurisdiction in cases where the violatioirs of procedure on the part of the registering authority are not gross or the violations do not shock lhe conscience of thc Court. Lack ol jurisdiction is completely different from a refusal to exercise jurisdiction." In the instant case also, the registering authority failed to perform their statutory duties while registering both the impugned documents as this Court passed interim order on 09.11.2009 directing the respondent No'3 herein not to entertain and admit to registration any document relating to the suit schedule property The said order is made absolute on 1.3.12.2012- In spite of that, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 registered the impugned documents. In view of the same, the writ petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India' L7, The relevant portion of the Judgment reiied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in Sury'it Singh and others a. Harbdns Singh and. others (Supra-2) rs as [ollows: d I 74 G, srr,J W.;,.Nos.41413 & 41437 oJ 2016 "In dehance of the restraint orde-, thc alienatirtn / assignment was made. If we were to le t it go as suct, it would defeat the ends of justice :rnd the prevalent public policy. When the Court in,ends a particu.lar state of affairs to exist while it is in r;eisin of a lis, ttrat state of affairs is not only required to be maintai red, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders, otherwise. 'lhe Court, in these circumstances has tbe duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/ assignmcnt as having not laken place at all for its purposes." The above said finding of the Hon,blc Supreme Court squarely apply to the facts of the instant case.

18. The contcntion of the contesting respor dent is that the petitioners had already filcC O.S.No.222 of 201B on the file of the Il( Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad for cancellation of impugned sale deeds along with other re. evant documents without decidir.g the rights of the competent Civil Court and the writ petitions are not maintainable. In fact the petitioners filed writ petitions in the year, 2Cl6 for cancellation of the documents. Subsequently the petitioner No.1 frled O.S.No.j222 of 201g 75 sr,.r W.P.Nos.47473 & 41437 o! 2016 on the hle of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In view of the same, the question of suppression of fact does not arise. Moreover, this Court dealing with documents executed by the petitioners on ttre ground that whether the registering authority performed his duty as per procedure contcmplated under the Registration Act, 1908 or not. In the instant case, it clearly shows that the respondent authorities registered the impugned documents in spite of the Court order and contrary to the Standing Order No.219 (b) of the Registration Act. In view of the same, this Court can cancel the registration of document as held by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Compang (India) Limited u. S.P.Velaguthqrn and others (Supra-S).

19. The Judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent in Amudhaaali and others a P.Rukumani and. cthers (Supra-4) not apply to the facts of the case. a 6 76 SI<,J W.P.I'1os.41413 & 41437 of 2016 2C.. This Cc,urt is not going to declare the validity of execution of impugned documents by the vendors of the petitioners in favour of the contesting respon lent in the instant case. It has to be decided by the competent Civil Court in penCing civil proccedings. In the instant writ petitions, this Court is dcciding whether the rel3istration of the documents is valid or not. 2L. After liiing these writ petitions, the cancellation Deed executed by ,he vendors of the petitioners ir Document No.3247 of 2r)08 dated 23.12.2OO8 was set ar;ide by this Cor.rrt in W.P.No.24073 ot 2aO9, daLed 22.O3.2()17 and the same was cor {irmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.61l of 2017 on 03.03.2022. In view of the same, the documenl s registercd by the vendors of tht: petitioners in favour of t--ie contesting unofliciai responderLt cannot be valid and the validity of the execution of the documents between the vendors of the petitioners aIc contesting a )espondent has to be decided in apprcpriate civil proceedings. Ihe registration of the impugned documents 17 SI(,J W.P.Nos.47473 & 41437 of 2076 are liab1e to be set aside on the ground that the documents are registered in spite of the interim order of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.3L289 of 2OO9 in W.P.No.24O73 of 2009 on

09.11.2009 and contrary to the Standing Order No.219 (b) ol the Registration Act. 22, In view of the above findings, both the writ petitions are allowed by setting aside the registration of the Document Nos.3862 of 2016 and 3864 of 2016, dated IB.O7.2016 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, R.O.(OB), Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

23. Miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending shall stand closed. sD/-s. ALLIKARJUNA RAO AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Just (For His Lordships Kind per usal) SARATH To ffi.t"r"J:[i,U' Telansana Advocates Association Library, Hish court I[:,X:.*"J*.8:fif" Union of rndia Ministry of Law, Jusrice and company

1. 11 LR Copies. , t lf |!,!g'*:sh,1,^; ,*,*l-t:s?:?Js,',1g,.,[:fl astration)Department' ; g{*sfgi:ffi si1*r8i:;#,i"nti#*lruafl fi ;:::,,. ' if i"l' R'"?i.l ;5f ti',[Bi;31?iB* n m e nt, orri ce or th e ru o "TEnJi,'?l'En " of Telanoana. zrt HYderabad. [OUT] B. One CC to-tV1/s VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advo,cate [OPI,|C] 9. i;; cctio cP FoR-srAlvlPS & REGlsrRATloN, High (lourtforthe state 10.One CC'to SRI R.ANURAG, Advocate [OPUC] 11.Two CD CoPiet; A (r ^. PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 L COMMON OII.DER WP.Nos.41413 AND 41437 of 2016 IA 7' a\ i+ I;U .],..,-}, I6n Mf'1 ,,N'fl ,1 ir ALLOWINGTHE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT CISSTS Ili- ,5 q a I I ! I I I I I iI I I r i iI ! I I I I x I I