WP/27930/2007 of Thammali Venkatesh Vs The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, on 27 December 2007

Order:

The petitioners state that their father purchased the propertyadmeasuring Ac.0.09 gts., Ac.0.08 gts., Ac.0.18 gts., Ac.0.20 gts.,Ac.3.30 gts., Ac.8.16 gts., and Ac.4.31 gts., in Survey Nos.259, 260, 936,937, 1373, 1375 and 1376 respectively, situated at Dhobipet village,Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The case of the petitionersis that after the death of their father, they filed a suit in O.S. No. 27 of2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, against theirstepbrothers i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 5 for partition of the saidproperties, and the said suit was decreed. Against the said decree,respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed an appeal being A.S. No. 269 of 2006 on thefile of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, which wasallowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred secondappeal in S.A. No. 1348 of 2007, and this Court, while admitting thesame, granted interim injunction orders restraining respondent Nos.3 to5 herein from alienating, creating any third party rights or changing thenature of the property in question. Now the grievance of the petitionersis that though the matter is pending before the Civil Court, and there isan injunction order against respondent Nos.3 to 5, they are trying toexecute a sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 in respect ofthe property in question. Hence, they filed the present writ petitionseeking to direct respondent No.2 not to entertain the document to beproduced by respondent No.3 to 5 in respect of the property in question.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedGovernment pleader for Revenue.

According to the petitioners’ own admission, there is a civildispute pending between them and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in respect ofthe property in question. The contention of the petitioners is that thoughthe matter is pending before the Civil Court, and there is an injunctionorder against respondent Nos. 3 to 5, they are trying to execute a saledeed in favour of third parties, and therefore, they made a request torespondent No.2 not to entertain the document to be produced byrespondent Nos. 3 to 5, but in vain. Pendency of civil dispute is not aground for the petitioners to seek a direction to respondent No.2 not toentertain and register the sale deed to be presented by respondent Nos.3 to 5 executed by them in favour of any third parties, in respect of theproperty in question. It is settled law that respondent No.2 is merely aregistering authority, and he having not been vested with the power ofdeciding title disputes, can do nothing, but register the sale deeds thatare presented before him. Since the property in question is said to besubject matter of civil dispute before the Civil Court, any alienation byrespondent Nos. 3 to 5 and purchase thereof by third parties, would beat their risk and peril, and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action ofrespondent Nos.3 to 5, they may move the competent Civil Court, forindemnification or for any other relief, but, certainly, not this Court.

Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable, and the same isaccordingly dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail theremedies available to them under law. No costs.

___________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.