IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 20324 of 2008 Between: Mogarala Prasad, S/o. M. Krishnaiah, Hindu, R/o. H.No. 26-1-1577, Nellore-4, Andhra Pradesh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Nellore, Nellore District. 2 The District Registrar, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, Nellore 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction to respondent No.3 to declare document No. 8965/08 as null and void and not binding on the petitioner, and respondent No.4 to take appropriate action for deliberate cheating of Nalluru Madhava Rao, Nalluru Malakondaiah and Yalchuru Venkata Suresh and their supporters, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SARAVANA KUMAR Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.20324 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to declare document No. 8965/08 as null and void, and respondent No.4 to take appropriate action on Nalluru Madhava Rao, Nalluru Malakondaiah and Yalchuru Venkata Suresh and their supporters for their deliberate cheating in getting the subject property transferred in favour of third parties, without having any right, title and possession over the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural lands total admeasuring 181 ankanams in Sy. No. 70/7 (Old Sy. No. 70/3), which is part and parcel of 70/7a and 7b, Plot numbers 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 128 admeasuring each 33½ ankanams, situated at old Vedayapalem village, Nellore District, which were obtained by him by virtue of gift settlement deed, dated 28.02.2004, from his fore-fathers. It is his further case that when Nalluru Madhava Rao, Nalluru Malakondaiah and Yelchuru Venkata Suresh, without any right, title or possession over the subject lands, tried to grab the said lands, he lodged a report before the police authorities, and on the other hand, the said three persons ﬁled a suit in O.S. No. 920 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, seeking permanent injunction, and obtained ad-interim injunction against him. Pursuant thereto, the said three persons trespassed into the property in question with deadly weapons, beat the petitioner and his old aged parents, demolished the petitioner’s thatched house and looted the household articles worth Rs.50,000/- and tried to forcibly evict them from the said lands. Thereupon, the petitioner and his parents lodged a report before V Town Police Station, Nellore, but the police authorities did not take any action saying that the case is of civil nature. Then the petitioner approached the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, and got the interim orders passed in the said suit vacated and, subsequently, the suit was dismissed on 26.07.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiﬀs in O.S. No. 920 of 2003 preferred an appeal in A.S.No.179 of 2005 before the District Judge, Nellore. However, during pendency of the said appeal, Venkata Suresh, the 3rd appellant therein, transferred his rights over the the property in question in favour of the third party and, thereafter through the said third party, he got ﬁled another suit in O.S.No.283 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Principal District Munsif, Nellore, creating multiplicity of litigation, and obtained ad-interim injunction orders therein. The appeal in A.S.No.179 of 2005 was, subsequently, dismissed conﬁrming the judgment passed in O.S.No.920 of 2003. Challenging the same, Second Appeal being S.A.No.1491 of 2007 was ﬁled before this Court and the same is pending consideration. However, pending disposal of the said Second Appeal, plaintiﬀs 1 and 2, namely Nalluru Madhava Rao and Nalluru Malakondaiah, in O.S.No.920 of 2008, sold the property in question to the third parties through registered sale deed, by suppressing the real facts and by creating fake and false documents. Having come to know about the alienation of the lands in question to some third parties, the petitioner ﬁled a protest petition before the Sub- Registrar and District Registrar not to entertain and register any document/sale deeds to be presented by any party in respect of the lands in question. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his ﬁling a protest petition not to register the sale deeds in respect of the lands in question, the registering authorities, without considering his request, had registered the sale deed, and relegated him to seek redressal by approaching the Court of law. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.4. 4. Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the petitioner and some other persons in respect of the lands in question, and there are civil suits ﬁled against each other, and in fact, one second appeal is pending before this Court. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the second appeal, the plaintiﬀs in O.S.920 of 2008 sold the lands in question to some third parties, and his grievance is that, in spite of his ﬁling a protest petition not to register the sale deed to be presented, the registering authorities, without considering his request, had registered the sale deed in respect of the subject lands. Admittedly, under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), the Sub-Registrar, who is the registering authority, except in relation to the properties notiﬁed under Section 22-A of the Act and in cases where there are speciﬁc orders of the civil Courts operating restraining him from registering the lands, has no power whatsoever to refuse registration of a document when presented for registration. Therefore, no such exceptions can be taken to the action of the Sub-Registrar in registering the document presented in respect of the land in question. That apart, the Sub-Registrar is not vested with the power of adjudicating title disputes. Since there appear to be civil disputes between the petitioner and some other persons in respect of the subject lands and having regard to the fact that mere registration of a document in respect of the subject lands does not confer any title on the person, in whose favour the subject lands are alienated, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the civil Court and question the said transfer, but, certainly, at the instance of the petitioner, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide civil disputes, much less title disputes, and hold that the sale deed executed is void. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 18.09.2008 v v