IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15856 of 2010 Between: S. Ramachandra Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Sub Registrar, Chilamathur, Anantapur District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N. Ranga Reddy Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15856 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside endorsement No.1 of 2009 of respondent No.1 as confirmed vide endorsement No.8/G1/2010, dated 07.01.2010 of respondent No.2. The petitioner has approached respondent No.1 with a sale deed for registration intending to purchase Ac.5.45 ½ cents of land comprised in Sy.No.89/10-91 of Gownivaripalle, Kondapur Panchayat area of Chilamathur Sub-Division, Hindupur Division, Anantapur district from its owner Venkat Ramappa, son of Narasimhappa. After payment of the stamp duty of Rs.15,185/-, the petitioner has produced the document for registration. Upon receiving the said document, respondent No.1 has made the impugned endorsement to the effect that as the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, has granted an order of injunction in O.S.No.194 of 2008, the said document cannot be registered. When the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2, the same was rejected on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned endorsement made by respondent No.1 suffers from complete non- application of mind, because Standing Order 219(b) envisages refusal of registration, if the Court restrains a person from alienating a property. He further submitted that no such restraint order was passed by the civil Court except an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has not disputed the fact that except in cases of an order of restraint passed by the competent civil Court against a person from alienating the property, the registering authority cannot refuse registration. In his affidavit, the petitioner has extracted the decree for injunction granted on 09.04.2009 in O.S.No.194 of 2008 as under: “That the defendants be and are hereby restrained from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties by way of permanent injunction.” Though notice was served on the impleaded respondent, at whose instance respondent No.1 refused to register the document, he has not entered appearance. As the averments contained in the affidavit have remained uncontroverted, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the decree for injunction was confined only to possession and that no restraint order was passed by the competent civil Court against any person from alienating the property in question. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to receive the document proposed to be presented by the petitioner for purchase of the abovementioned property and register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the document. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.19959 and 25242 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.10.2010 ES