THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4965 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed an application, dated 24.12.2008, before the first respondent under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to accord permission to prosecute some officials of the Department of Registration and Stamps. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon and seeks a direction to the respondents to accord permission to him. The facts stated by the petitioner in brief are that one Mir Ahmad Ali was the owner of a house in M.I.G.18 of HUDA Colony, Kothapet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and he entered into an agreement of sale with one N.V.Subrahmanyam. The petitioner, A.Prabhakara Rao and his son-in-law, by name J.Praveen Kumar are said to have entered into an agreement with N.V.Subrahmanyam, to purchase flats that may be constructed over the site. It is stated that N.V.Subrahmanyam filed O.S.No.1681 of 2004 against A.Prabhakara Rao and J.Tirumala Rao, father of J.Praveen Kumar. The petitioner states that from the pleadings in the suit, it emerged that Mir Ahmad Ali executed a sale deed, dated 28.04.2004, in favour of J.Praveen Kumar. Alleging that J.Praveen Kumar was not at Hyderabad on the date of sale deed, the petitioner approached the authorities of the Registration Department to cancel the sale deed and to initiate prosecution. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Even if the facts pleaded by the petitioner in his affidavit are taken on their face value, hardly any case is made out for prosecution of anyone. Basically, the alleged agreement of sale between the petitioner on the one hand and N.V.Subrahmanyam on the other itself is untenable. The reason is that, N.V.Subrahmanyam did not hold any title over the property. It was owned by Mir Ahmad Ali. Even assuming that any transaction between Mir Ahmad Ali and J.Praveen Kumar is vitiated by any provisions of law, the petitioner has to file a suit for cancellation of the document, duly establishing his rights. The sheet-anchor of the case pleaded by the petitioner is that J.Praveen Kumar was not at Hyderabad when the sale deed, dated 28.04.2004, was executed. It is to be noted that it is the presence of the executant of the document that becomes material and the law does not insist on the presence of the transferee. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:30.03.2009 kdl