Transcript
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKITHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos . 9512 of 2003; 22257, 22298,23005 and 23088 of 2004; 1082, 3679, 12958, 21356,21357, 24962, 24972, 25661, 25662, 25663, 25664, 25665,25666, 26148 and 26149 of 2005; 879, 880, 881, 882, 979,980 and 981 of 2006 Date: 24-10-2006. Between : Yanala Malleshwari & others. …..Petitioners And Ananthula Sayamma & others. …..Respondents.For the petitioners : S/Sri . M.R.K.Chowdary,K.Ramakrishna Reddy, N.SubbaReddy, V.Venkata Ramana,J.Prabhakar and H.Venugopal.For the Respondents :S/Sri.Mahamood Ali, Y.SrinivasaMurthy and M.S.Ramachandra Rao.< Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: 1. 2004 (1) ALT 1742. AIR 1950 ALLAHABAD 6323. AIR 1927 ALLAHABAD 3614. AIR 1991 AP 505. AIR 1974 SC 1924.6. 12 Bom.L.R.940.7. (2004) 8 SCC 5568. (2003) 5 SCC 705. 9. AIR 2005 SC 3401.10. AIR 1995 PUNJAB & HARYANA 86.11. AIR 1966 MP 20.12. AIR 1961 SC 78713. 2001 (1) ALD 86 C/15 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKITHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos. 9512 of 2003; 22257, 22298,23005 and 23088 of 2004; 1082, 3679, 12958, 21356,21357, 24962, 24972, 25661, 25662, 25663, 25664,25665,25666, 26148 and 26149 of 2005; 879, 880, 881, 882,979,980 and 981 of 2006. Date: 24-10-2006. Between : Yanala Malleshwari & others. …..Petitioners And Ananthula Sayamma & others. …..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKITHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos. 9512 of 2003; 22257, 22298,23005 and 23088 of 2004; 1082, 3679, 12958, 21356,21357, 24962, 24972, 25661, 25662, 25663, 25664,25665,25666, 26148 and 26149 of 2005; 879, 880, 881, 882,979,980 and 981 of 2006. COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Justice Bilal Nazki) This batch of writ petitions raise same question oflaw and fact. Facts in different writ petitions have beennoted in the opinion of my brother Mr.Justice V.V.S.Raoand I will not be dealing with the facts in detail.The question is, whether a person who sells hisproperty and executes a sale deed and gets it registered in terms of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referredto as ‘the Registration Act’), could unilaterally cancel suchsale deed and whether Sub-Registrar was bound toregister such a deed. In writ petition No.14007 of 2004,the registration of cancellation of gift deed by Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar was challenged. A learned SingleJudge of this Court, relying on an earlier judgment ofSingle Judge in Property Association of BaptistChurches v. Sub-Registrar, Jangoan[1] , dismissed thewrit petition holding that a party aggrieved by registrationof a document, had to file a suit. This judgment waschallenged in writ appeal No.1486 of 2004. The DivisionBench considered the question whether registration of acancellation deed could be effected by the registeringauthority. The Division Bench however, by its order dated11.10.2004, affirmed the order of the learned SingleJudge and dismissed the appeal. In that judgment, it wasobserved that the Registration Act does not enable theregistering authority to make an enquiry before registeringa cancellation deed. Therefore dispute, if any, betweenthe parties, was a dispute essentially in terms of privatelaw which could only be agitated in common lawproceedings by seeking a declaration under the SpecificRelief Act. Thereafter, writ petition Nos.23005 and 23088of 2004 came up before another Judge. In these writpetitions also, registration of cancellation deeds waschallenged. The learned Single Judge felt that various
