HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.25269 of 2010 Dated : 07th October, 2010 Between : Suram Ramana Reddy and others .. Petitioners And The Joint Sub-Registrar, Nellore and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr.Naram Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.1 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7:-- The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 not to release/register agreements of sale-cum-General Powers of Attorney stated to have been executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6. I have heard Sri N.Nageswararao, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. There appear to be serious disputes between respondent No.2 and respondent No.7 over certain immovable properties. The petitioners claimed interest in the properties in question through respondent No.7. Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.71 of 2010 in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, wherein it has filed I.A.No.1035 of 2010 for temporary injunction against respondent No.7 from alienating the suit schedule properties. By order dated 23-9-2010, the civil Court directed maintenance of status quo by both the parties. In the present Writ Petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 is seeking to register certain documents in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6 and therefore, they sought for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 not to release the documents presented by respondent No.2. The functions of respondent No.1 are regulated by the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). Section 22-A of the Act deals with prohibition of registration of documents. A careful reading of the said provision discloses that disputes between private parties over properties are not comprehended by the said provision. Standing Order 219(b) issued by the Government envisages that the registration of a document shall be refused if there is an order of injunction restraining a party from alienating or transferring in any manner immovable properties. As noted above, at the instance of respondent No.2, an order of status quo was issued against respondent No.7. The petitioners are not parties to the said proceedings. Admittedly, no injunction has been granted by the competent civil Court against respondent No.2 from alienating or transferring the properties or preventing it from getting any document registered. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the proposed execution of the documents by respondent No.2, the only remedy, in my opinion, available to them is to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate relief. In the absence of any legal impediment against respondent No.1 to entertain and register the documents from respondent No.2, no writ of Mandamus can be issued to him at the instance of the petitioners. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.32289 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J 07th October, 2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN/AM