VENKANNAGARI NAVEEN RAO Vs. JOINT SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners intended to purchase Ac.23-01 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 120/29, 30 and 32 of Pedda Kanjirla Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. The sale deed was executed in their favour on 18.11.2011 by the vendors by names Raju Kumar Tandon, Shani Tandon, Praveen Dawar, etc. The document was presented before the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Sanga Reddy-the first respondent. He refused to register the document by stating the reasons through memo, dated 30.01.2012. He stated that the document was presented on 03.12.2011, but before the registration was effected, he received information from one P.Vinod Kumar, Advocate, to the effect that orders of temporary injunction are operative vis--vis the land in two suits being O.S. No. 340 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy and O.S. No. 120 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy. The particulars of the Interlocutory applications in which the orders were passed were also mentioned. By referring to Standing Order No. 219 (b), the first respondent expressed his disinclination to register the document. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said communication. The petitioners contend that the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Sangareddy, the first respondent, was not made a party to the suits nor they were impleaded therein. They relied upon a judgment of this Court in Thummlachetty Builders and Developers (Pvt) Ltd V. Commr. And I.G.S & R, 2008 6 ALD 818.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioners do not dispute that two suits referred to above are pending in relation to the land which is the subject matter of the sale deed presented by them for registration. Though it is stated that the orders of temporary injunction restraining the defendants in one particular suit were vacated, it is not denied that the order of temporary injunction passed by the Family Court is still subsisting. The vendors of the petitioners are parties to the suit.