IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8577 of 2001 Between: T.Veera Swamy, S/o. T.Chandraiah. Sharada Mechanical Engineering, R/o. EWS-182, Kamalanagar, Ranga Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND The Sub-registrar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy. .....RESPONDENT 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 declare the action of the respondent in not aﬀecting appropriate corrections and taking appropriate action as necessary in the circumstances of the case in respect of Shed No.17, Phase-II, IDA., Cherlapally in view of the Cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.2864/1997 dated 15/05/1997 and agreement of sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.2672/1997 dated 10/04/1997 as illegal, contrary to law violative of articles 14 and the principles of natural justice, by issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions and consequently direct the respondent herein to aﬀect necessary change in the entries in respect of shed No.17 Phase-II I.D-A, Cherlapally R.R.District, pursuant to the cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.2864/1997 dated 15/05/1997 and the agreement of slae- cum-G.P.A bearing document No.2672/1997 dated 10-4-1997, else the petitioner would be put to severe loss damage and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.8577 of 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled aggrieved by the inaction of the Sub Registrar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District, the respondent herein, in taking necessary steps pursuant to the compromise decree dated 06.07.1999 in O.S.No.529 of 1997, whereby the registered sale deed bearing document No.2864 of 1997 dated 15.05.1997 and the registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.2672/1997 dated 10.04.1997 were cancelled. The case of the petitioner as culled out from his affidavit is as follows: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Shop No.17, Phase-II, I.D.A., Cherlapalli, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed No.7858 of 1992 dated 17.02.1992. While so, one Sri Ram Reddy is said to have fabricated registered agreement of sale-cum General Power of Attorney bearing document No.2672/1997 dated 10.04.1997 and basing thereupon, executed the registered sale deed bearing document No.2864/1997 dated 15.05.1997, ostensibly selling the petitioner’s property to one Sri Rama Krishna Reddy and Smt.R.Dhanalaxmi. Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioner ﬁled O.S.No.529 of 1997 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District seeking cancellation of the said documents. It is stated that the matter was compromised between the parties and in terms of the compromise, the suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 06.07.1999, cancelling the two documents. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the registration authorities failed to take action pursuant to the cancellation of these documents, inspite of his representations dated 04.10.1999, 30.05.2000 and 11.10.1999. The petitioner also approached the lower Court by way of E.A.No.17 of 2000 in E.P.No.34 of 2000 in O.S.No.529 of 1997, being an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a direction to the respondent to give eﬀect to the cancellation of the documents by making necessary alterations in the relevant record. However, by order dated 01.03.2001, the said application was dismissed by the lower Court holding that there was no need to give any separate direction to the respondent to effect the cancellation of the documents. Aggrieved by the continued inaction of the respondent in giving eﬀect to the cancellation of the agreement of sale and the sale deed, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, stating that he is put to severe hardship as he is unable to raise loans on the land. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the respondent admitting in substance the facts narrated above and strangely, taking a stand that the petitioner would be required to pay stamp duty to get his name corrected in the records. Heard Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent. It is manifest that the petitioner approached the trial Court by way of O.S.No.529 of 1997 seeking cancellation of the registered documents under the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’). Section 31 of the Act reads as hereunder: “31. When cancellation may be ordered (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the oﬃcer in whose oﬃce the instrument has been so registered; and such oﬃcer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.” In the light of the above provision, it is clear that once the trial Court decreed the cancellation of the registered documents, be it upon merits or by way of compromise, it was under a duty to send a copy of such decree to the registration authority in whose oﬃce the cancelled document had been so registered and upon such intimation, such registration authority was required to note on the copy of the cancelled instrument contained in his books, the factum of its cancellation. In the present case, a perusal of the decree passed by the lower Court in O.S.No.529 of 1997 demonstrates that the duty cast upon the Court under Section 31(2) of the Act was not discharged, inasmuch as the decree was not communicated to the respondent. The petitioner also failed to seek a direction in terms of the above provision and approached the lower Court by way of E.A.No.17 of 2000 in E.P.No.34 of 2000 in O.S.No.529 of 1997 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction from the lower Court to the respondent to eﬀect the cancellation of the registered documents. The lower Court also failed to note that it had overlooked the duty cast upon it by Section 31(2) of the Act and dismissed the said application holding that no separate direction was required to be given to the registration authority and further, as the said authority was not a party to the suit or to the execution proceedings, it could not give such a direction. It is obvious that the lower Court was completely oblivious to the duty enjoined upon it by Section 31(2) of the Act, when it passed the above order. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondent authority to eﬀect the cancellation of the registered documents, as the decree was never communicated to the respondent by the lower Court as required under Section 31(2) of the Act. The respondent cannot be found fault with for not acting upon the representations of the petitioner, when the lower Court did not intimate to the respondent the factum of the cancellation of the documents. However, the stand taken by the respondent that the petitioner would be required to pay additional stamp duty to get his name corrected is completely misconceived. The petitioner, being the lawful owner of the subject property, claiming under an independent registered sale deed, obtained cancellation of the registered documents which were fabricated and were adverse to his interest. The mere cancellation of these documents does not place any liability upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty to get the registering authority to give eﬀect to such cancellation. The stand of the respondent is therefore without proper application of mind. Be that as it may, it is for the petitioner to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the Act to get the registering authorities to give eﬀect to the cancellation of the documents as per the compromise decree obtained by him. Recognizing this fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought the leave of this Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with the legal provision. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of permitting the petitioner to take appropriate steps in terms of Section 31 of the Act for giving eﬀect to the compromise decree in O.S.No.529 of 1997 with regard to the cancellation of the registered documents bearing Nos.2672/1997 dated 10.04.1997 and 2864 of 1997 dated 15.05.1997. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 31.10.2008 va