IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 420 OF 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22.01.2004 in WP No. 20912 of 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.Sumanth ..... APPELLANT AND The Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Sulthanabad, Karimnagar District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. No. 20912 of 2003 is in appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition. In the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged the action of the Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Sulthanabad, Karimnagar District, in refusing to register the sale deed produced by the appellant in respect of H.No. 1-19/2, Dharmaram village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. The case of the appellant was that he had purchased the said property under unregistered agreement of sale dated 16.05.2001 from one Jiddigi Vijaya Lakshmi, who was the wife of one J.Bhaskar, a Motor Vehicles Inspector. As the said Motor Vehicles Inspector was involved in a disproportionate assets case and the matter was under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to the Bureau requested the Registration Authorities not to effect registration of the properties which were the subject matter of this investigation. It was on this basis that the Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District, refused to entertain the sale deed produced by the appellant in respect of the subject property, which he allegedly purchased from the wife of the said Motor Vehicles Inspector. The learned Single Judge, while accepting that there could be no quarrel with the proposition that the Registration Authorities should not refuse to register the document at the instance of an extraneous authority, took note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Judge observed that the agreement of sale under which the appellant lodged his claim to the subject property was an unregistered document and thus the title to the said property did not pass to the appellant thereunder, though it was allegedly executed as long back as in the year 2001. Therefore, given the fact that the disproportionate assets case instituted against the husband of the appellant’s vendor was under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the learned Judge was of the opinion that no exception could be taken to the action of the Registering Authority in refusing to entertain the appellant’s sale deed for registration. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that pursuant to the interim order passed in the Writ Petition, the document presented by the appellant may have been entertained for registration. The learned Judge however held that, in view of the final adjudication of the Writ Petition, the benefit under the interim order would not enure to the appellant and accordingly directed invalidation of the registration, if any, effected pursuant to the interim order. Heard Sri I. Aga Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Anti- Corruption Bureau, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is to be noticed that the appellant, having obtained an unregistered agreement of sale in the year 2001, only had inchoate title to the subject property and in the meanwhile, the Anti-Corruption Bureau commenced investigation into the disproportionate assets held by the appellant’s vendor’s husband. In the light of the seriousness of the investigation, no exception can be taken to the action of the Registering Authorities in not acting upon the sale deed presented by the appellant, as the said property continued to be the property of the vendor as on that date and was also the subject matter of the investigation. However, as the appellant’s sale deed may have been registered pursuant to the interim order passed in the writ petition and as the right and title of the appellant are dependant upon the result of the investigation by the Anti- Corruption Bureau into the matter, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sufficiently served by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of holding that the registration of the appellant’s sale deed, if any, pursuant to the interim order dated 26.09.2003 passed in the Writ Petition, would be subject to the result of the investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. In the event the said investigation has already been completed and the finding of the Bureau is to the effect that the property claimed by the appellant is not liable for further action in the disproportionate assets case, the appellant would be entitled to release of the registered sale deed. In the event the investigation is not yet concluded, the matter would have to await the result of such investigation. With the above direction, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar December 15, 2009 MAS.