You are on page 1of 3

MANU/AP/0433/2012

Equivalent Citation: AIR2013AP137, 2012(5)ALD464


IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Writ Petition No : 705 of 2011
Decided On: 18.04.2012
Appellants: Suram Ramana Reddy s/o. Rama Subba Reddy R/o. Madanapulla Cheruvu
village Bestavaripeta Mandal Prakasam District and Veginati Osura Reddy S/o. Gurava
Reddy R/o. Khajipuram village Bestavaripeta Mandal Prakasam District
Vs.
Respondent: The Joint Sub-Registrar -I, District Registrar office District Court compund,
Nellore city, PSR Nellore District and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Hon'ble Sri Justice L.N. Reddy
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sri. C. Raghu
For Respondents/Defendant: GP for Revenue, Respondents 1 and 2 for Sri. Nimmagadda
Satyanarayana, Respondents 5 to 8 and None Appeared, Respondents 3 and 4
Subject: Property
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 17; Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17,
Registration Act, 1908 - Section 18, Registration Act, 1908 - Section 28
Case Note:
Property - Grant of registration - Direction sought not to register sale-cum-G.P.A. - Held,
principle underlying Section 28 of Registration Act, 1908 is almost similar to one
enunciated under Section 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - According to that
provision, if a suit is to be filed in respect of immovable properties situated within
jurisdiction of different Courts, it may be instituted in any Court within local limits of
whose jurisdiction any portion of property is situated - Therefore it could not be said that
presentation of documents by Respondents 5 to 8 before 1st Respondent was in any way

illegal - It might be true that parallel transactions had taken place in respect of same item
of property - That however was not at all concern of Sub-Registrar - Rule 58 of the A.P.
Rules framed under Registration Act mandates that it is not part of duty of registering
officer to enquire into validity of document brought before him for registration - It is for
concerned parties to work out their remedies by approaching Courts of competent
jurisdiction - Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER
Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy

1. The petitioners state that they have


purchased different extents of land in
Survey No. 174/1 of Pitchukulagudipadu
Village and Survey No. 341/B of
Markapur Town from the American
Baptist Foreign Mission Society, 3rd
respondent herein under three different
sale deeds. The 4th respondent proposed
to sell some of the properties situated at
Markapur on the one hand and Nellore
on the other hand in favour of
respondents 5 to 8. Accordingly, four
different agreements of sale-cum-G.P.A.
dated 15.04.2010 were entered into
between the parties and the same were
presented before the Joint Sub-Registrar,
1st respondent herein. The documents
were received and assigned P.Nos.73 to
76 of 2010. The petitioners raised an
objection as to the very permissibility of
registration of the documents by the 1st
respondents. According to them, the
properties were not situated within the
jurisdiction of the 1st respondent and
registration of Such documents is
prohibited under Section 28 of the
Registration Act (for short 'the Act'). It is
in this background, that the petitioners
seek a direction to the 1st respondent not
to register the documents bearing
P.Nos.73 to 76 of 2010. The 1st
respondent filed a counter affidavit
opposing the writ petition. He has
narrated, in brief, the background of the

transactions in relation to said lands. He


contends that if a document purports to
deal with the items of properties situated
within the territorial jurisdiction of two
different Sub-Registrars, it can be
presented for registration before the
office of one such Sub-Registrar, as
provided for under Section 28 of the Act.
The
contesting
respondents
i.e.,
respondents 5 to 8 have also filed a
counter affidavit almost on the same
lines.
2. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel
for the petitioners, learned Government
Pleader
for
Revenue
and
Sri
Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned
counsel for respondents 5 to 8.
3. When the Country was under the
British rule, the missionaries have
acquired vast extents of land particularly
in urban areas in Andhra and
Rayalaseema
regions.
For
the
administration of such properties,
agencies like respondents 3 and 4, came
into existence. Enormous litigation has
ensued in the matter of transfer of such
properties or administration thereof. The
same item of property appears to have
been purchased by the petitioner from
the 3rd respondent on the one hand and
respondents 5 to 8 from the 4th
respondent on the other hand. However
in this writ petition, the limited issue is

whether it is competent for the 1st


respondent to entertain and register the
documents in relation to the properties,
which are situated within the, territorial
jurisdiction of his office as well as those
outside his jurisdiction, arises for
consideration.
4. The normal rule is that a document
pertaining to an item of immovable
property can be presented before the
Sub-Registrar, within whose jurisdiction
the property is situated. In other words, a
Sub-Registrar cannot entertain any
document in respect of the property,
which is not within his jurisdiction.
Where however, the document purports
to deal with Servers items, which are
situated within the jurisdiction of
different Sub-Registrars, it is permissible
for the parties to present the document
before any of such Sub-Registrars.
Section 28 of Act makes this aspect clear
and it reads.
28. Place of registering documents
relating to land.-Save as in this Part
otherwise provided, every, document
mentioned in Section 17, sub-section (1),
[clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g),
Section 17 of sub-section (2), in so far as
such document affects immovable
property,] and Section 18, [clauses (a),
(b) and (cc)]. shall be presented for
registration in the office of a SubRegistrar within whose sub-district the
whole or some portion of the property to
which such document relates is situate.
5. The principle underlying Section 28
of the Act is almost similar to the one
enunciated under Section 17 of C.P.C.
According to that provision, if a suit is to
be filed in respect of immovable
properties situated within the jurisdiction
of different Courts, it may be instituted

in any Court within the local limits of


whose jurisdiction any portion of the
property is situated. Therefore it cannot
be said that the presentation of the
documents by respondents 5 to 8 before
the 1st respondent is in any way
illegal./It may be true that the parallel
transactions have taken place in respect
of same item of property. That however
is not at all the concern of the SubRegistrar. Rule 58 of the A.P. Rules
framed under the Registration Act
mandates that it is not part of the duty of
the registering officer to enquire into the
validity of the document brought before
him for registration. It is for the
concerned parties to work out their '
remedies by approaching the Courts of
competent jurisdiction.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is
dismissed. The miscellaneous petition
filed in this writ petition also stands
disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt.
Ltd.