IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 682 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 6402 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.SHIV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.682 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The learned Single Judge, in the order under appeal, observed that the dispute with regards the property in question, between the appellants herein on the one hand and the respondents 2 and 3 on the other, was required to be resolved in a properly constituted civil proceedings and that the 1st respondent was not entitled to, in law, to make any roving enquiry into such disputed questions of title and identity of the land. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition, made it clear that the order passed would not preclude the appellants herein from obtaining appropriate declaration from the Court of competent civil jurisdiction and, if the petitioner availed any such remedy, the same shall have to be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the dismissal of the writ petition. Before us Sri P.Shiv Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that the land which was the subject matter of registration before the 1st respondent is, in fact, an open passage and that, by misrepresenting to the contrary, respondents 2 and 3 had sought to register the sale deed. Learned Counsel would submit that the Sub-Registrar had the jurisdiction under Section 82 of the Act to examine whether misrepresentation or fraud had been committed by persons who sought to register a document. Unless the document ex-facie shows that there is a misrepresentation or fraud, the Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to cause a roving enquiry to determine these factual aspects urged by the appellants before us. The only remedy available to the appellants is to let in evidence in a properly instituted civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction to have the sale deed, if any, registered to be set aside. The order of the learned Single Judge does not necessitate interference in appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Needless to state that the order now passed shall not preclude the appellants herein from availing such other remedies as are available to them in law and, if the appellants choose to avail any such remedies, the observations made herein shall not preclude the Court examining the matter on its own merits. Subject to the above, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date:01.09.2008 GS/ASP