PEREDDY RAGHAVA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges memo, dated 26.4.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration and Stamps, 2nd respondent herein and the consequential proceedings, dated 6.5.2010 issued by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, 4th respondent herein. The facts, that gave rise to the filing of the writ petition, are as under:

(2.) Petitioner purchased another plot in the immediate neighbourhood from the same vendors on the same day. The vendors of this plot purchased it from S.K. Madan and his vendor was Mr. Gangaiah. Here again, the original owner was M/s. Kasthopa Corporation. Gangaiah purchased the plot through a sale deed dated 30.4.1987, bearing Document No. 4106/87.

(3.) The petitioner filed OS No. 898 of 2005 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against Mohd. Zaheeruddin, respondent No. 6 herein; for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the second plot. An order of temporary injunction was also passed. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sold the first plot in favour of Sri Y. Ravi Prasad and Smt. P. Jaya Pradha in the year 2006 and the second plot to Sri B. Dayakar Reddy. The purchasers were impleaded as parties to the suit. In the trial of the suit, the 6th respondent filed a letter, dated 25.9.2009 addressed by the Deputy Inspector General-I, Registration and Stamps, 3rd respondent herein and it was marked as Ex. B13. According to the said letter, Sri V. Surender Reddy, 7th respondent herein submitted a letter, dated 29.6.2009 to the 2nd respondent stating that he purchased the second plot mentioned above from Sri Abdul Haqueeb in the year 2007 and in the process of verification of the title, he came to know that in the document bearing No. 4106/87, the purchaser was shown as V. Madhuri, whereas in the encumbrance certificate, in relation to the said property, it was mentioned that one Sri Gangaiah is the purchaser under the sale deed bearing the same number. Through his letter, dated 25.9.2009, the 2nd respondent expressed the view that interpolations were made in the Document No. 4106/07 and that the name of Gangaiah was inserted after erasing the name of Madhuri, Similar observation was made in respect of the Document No. 4105/1987, duly indicating the concerned names.