IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos : 25997, 26021,26114,26115 of 2008 and W.P.SR No. 88782 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 25997 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Vemulapalli Laxmi, W/o. Babu Rajendra Prasad, R/o. Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Yerneni Ranga Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Ratnam, R/o. Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Yerneni Vijaya Lakshmi W/o.Ranga Rao R/o.d.No.74-8-8A,J.D.Nagar, Vijayawada Krishna District, rep.by GPA Holder Y.Ranga RAo ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction(s) particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to register the Sale Deeds submitted by the 2nd petitioner bearing No.258 of 2002 (pending Registration) and release the same to the purchasers namely the 3rd petitioner herein forthwith and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (A.A.) WRIT PETITION NO :26021 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Vemulapalli Laxmi, W/o. Babu Rajendra Prasad, R/o. Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Yerneni Ranga Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Ratnam, R/o. Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Yerneni Saisree, D/o. Ranga Rao, R/o. 74-8-8A, J.D. Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction (s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to register the Sale Deeds submitted by the 2nd petitioner bearing No. 256 of 2002 (pending Registration) and release the same to the purchasers, namely, the 3rd petitioner herein, forthwith, and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (A.A.) WRIT PETITION NO : 26114 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Vemulapalli Laxmi, W/o. Babu Rajendra Prasad, R/o. Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Yerneni Ranga Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Ratnam, R/o. Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Yerneni Ratna Prasad S/o.Ranga Rao R/o.d.No.74-8-8A,J.D.Nagar, Vijayawada Krishna District, rep.by GPA Holder Y.Ranga RAo ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or directions particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to register the Sale Dees submitted by the 2nd petitioner bearing No.259 of 2002 (pending Registration) and release the same to the purchasers, namely, the 3rd petitioner herein, forthwith and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (A.A.) WRIT PETITION NO : 26115 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Vemulapalli Laxmi, W/o. Babu Rajendra Prasad, R/o. Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Yerneni Ranga Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Ratnam, R/o. Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Smt. Mandava Sunitha, W/o. Venakta Ramana, Hindu, R/o. 74-8-8A, J.D. Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction (s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to register the Sale Deeds submitted by the 2nd petitioner bearing No. 255 of 2002 (pending Registration) and release the same to the purchasers, namely, the 3rd petitioner herein, forthwith, and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (A.A.) And WPSR. No. 88782 of 2008 Between: 1 Vemulapalli Laxmi W/o. Babu Rajendra Prasad R/o. Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Yerneni Ranga Rao S/o. Late Venkata Ratnam R/o. Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Yerneni Sarojini W/o. Late Venkata Ratnam R/o. D.No.74-8-8, J.D.Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1The District Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2The Sub-Registrar, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction (s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to register the Sale Deeds submitted by the 2nd petitioner bearing No. 257 of 2002 (pending Registration) and release the same to the purchasers, namely, the 3rd petitioner herein forthwith, and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (A.A.) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO W.P.Nos.25997,26021,26114,26115 of 2008 W.P.(SR)No.88782 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: First petitioner, Smt. Vemulapalli Laxmi, is owner of a considerable extent of land admeasuring Acs.1.90 comprised in survey No. 5/3 and 8/1 situated at Gunadala Village in Vijayawada. She acquired the property under a registered gift deed dated 12.11.1981 executed by her father. Be that as it is, sometime in January, 1983, she sold away different bits of lands to the wife and four children of second petitioner. The purchasers are arrayed as third respondent in each writ petition. Statedly, possession of the land demised under agreement of sale was handed over possession to the purchasers. First respondent also executed another document - “confirmation deed” on 11.10.1985 confirming such sale. On the same day, she also executed two registered general power of attorneys bearing document Nos. 673 and 674 of 1985, presumably, for the reason that the purchaser is none other than the wife or child of second petitioner. First petitioner through her general power of attorney, second petitioner, executed five sale deeds on 09.05.2002. These were presented in the office of second respondent. They were kept pending as document P.Nos.255 to 259. The reason appears to be information sent by first petitioner on 10.05.2002 to the effect that she cancelled registered G.P.A. in favour of second petitioner on 08.05.2002. There was exchange of correspondence between the vendor and vendees and ultimately the matter was resolved. Therefore on 17.6.2008, first petitioner executed a confirmation deed accepting the genuineness and validity of the sale deeds dated 09.05.2002, executed on her behalf by second petitioner and presented for registration as documents P.Nos. 255 to 259. It appears, second respondent orally informed that the documents have been referred to first respondent and no order was passed under Section 71 read with Section 34 and 45 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity ‘Registration Act’). Therefore, these writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the pending documents Nos.255 to 259 for registration in accordance with the Registration Act. At the stage of admission itself, the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Gunadala in the Office of first respondent filed counter. The factual background is admitted. In justification of the non-registration, the following reasons are given: “It is respectfully submitted that as per the averments made in the present Writ Petition the second petitioner who is executed the document which is kept pending as P.No. 255 to 259/2002, which was presented before the then Sub-Registrar, Gunadala on 9.5.2002, the second petitioner has no authority to execute the sale deed documents and therefore, the prayer sought for in the present Writ Petition is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed. If the Disputes between the first and second petitioner has been resolved now the First petitioner has to execute a fresh document of sale deed in favour of the Purchasers and the same will be registered if presented before the Sub-Registrar, considering in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. Alternatively the first petitioner has to execute the fresh G.P.A. authorizing the second petitioner to do all acts on behalf of the First petitioner in respect of the Scheduled properties to be mentioned therein and thereafter if the Second Petitioner as a General Power of Attorney of First Petitioner presents the fresh document before the Registering Authority the same will be considered in accordance with the Stamp Act and Registration Act. At any rate the pending document cannot be registered since the executant of the Document has no authority to execute the said document in view of the cancellation of the Registered General Power of Attorney.” The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) made their submissions reiterating their position, as disclosed in the pleadings. The only question is whether in view of the Confirmation Deed dated 17.6.2008 executed by first petitioner and presented to second respondent for registration, whether the sale deeds dated 09.05.2002 (documents P.Nos. 255 to 259) are not registerable under the provisions of Registration Act. There is no dispute or denial that the first petitioner is the paramount owner. There is also no dispute that she executed two registered general power of attorneys on 11.10.1985, which she cancelled subsequently vide cancellation deed dated 08.05.2002. In view of this, at that stage, the execution which is required to be verified by the Registrar under Section 34 and 35 of Registration Act cannot be said to have been proved. Therefore, the documents were kept pending. However, when first petitioner resiled from her position and executed Confirmation Deed on 17.6.2008, in effect, she revived the sale deeds dated 9.5.2002 executed on her behalf (paramount owner) by her agent (G.P.A. Holder), second petitioner. This removes any doubt surrounding the documents P.Nos. 255 to 259 and if the Confirmation Deed is registered, there would not be any objection for registering the sale deeds presented in May, 2002. In that view of the mater, the stand taken by the second respondent that first petitioner has to execute either fresh sale deeds or a fresh general power of attorney is unsustainable. In view of the above brief reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of. Second respondent is directed to consider the registration of the confirmation deed dated 17.6.2008 executed by first petitioner, Smt.Vemulapalli Laxmi, accepting and ratifying the sale deeds dated 09.05.2002 executed by second petitioner on her behalf as general power of attorney. After doing so, the documents P.Nos.255 to 259 can be considered for registration. No costs. ____________ V.V.S. RAO, J 4th December, 2008 pnb