V UMAMAHESWARA RAO Vs. SHAIK HUSSAIN SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6005 of 2003 (hereinafter called, first petitioner), who claims to be owner of certain agricultural land in R.S. No. 598 of Vuyyuru Village, Krishna District assails the order of second respondent dt. 27-3-2003. Be it noted, the second respondent passed the said order in an application filed by the first respondent under Section 3 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the Act). The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6006 of 2003 (hereinafter called, second petitioner) also assails similar order of even date.

(2.) The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The first respondent and thirty-four others purchased land in R..S. No. 598 of Vuyyuru Village from petitioners. As the Sub- Register refused to register sale deeds, first respondent filed two applications before second respondent under Section 73 of the Act against order of Sub-Registrar, Vuyyuru, dated 14-2-1996 refusing to register a sale deed on the ground that execution of documents was denied by the petitioners. The second respondent took applications under Section 73 of the Act on file and issued notices to various persons. On 11-4-1996 the second respondent examined these witnesses produced by the first respondent as well as petitioners and case was adjourned from time to time. In the meanwhile, first petitioner filed a suit being O.S. No. 57 of 2000 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, for declaration of title and obtained order of Status quo in LA. No. 700 of 2000, which was subsequently extended from time to time. While status quo order was pending, first respondent herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 3531 of 2002 before this Court seeking direction to second respondent to pass appropriate orders in the applications filed by first respondent against petitioners being Application Nos. 1 and 2 of 1996. This Court by order dt. 23-1-2003 directed the District Registrar-II, Registration and Stamps, Vijayawada, Krishna District, to dispose of the application within three months. Therefore, the Registrar having regard to evidence on record and also deposition of petitioners by impugned order allowed applications holding that Sections 19, 20, 21, 23 and 32 of the Act are complied with in the case. Accordingly, he directed the Sub-Registrar to register documents if they are duly presented in accordance with law. The Registrar observed that all the attestors and the scribe of the documents, who are present at the time of execution of the documents spoke that petitioners executed the document, that petitioner's contention that their signatures were obtained on empty blank papers is contrary to evidence and that petitioners did not give any complaint against any person who allegedly took their signatures on empty stamp papers. Ultimately, the second respondent observed as under. The respondent deposed that he was forced to sign on empty stamp papers. On perusal of Ex.A. 1 (i.e.) Document No. P1/1996 of Sub-Registrar Office, Vuyyuru, it can be seen that the signatures of Umamaheswar Rao appear at the end of the typed matter on each sheet. If he signed on stamp papers how can it be so exact that he sign on each sheet only at the end of typed matter? How can one imagine about No. of typed lines on each sheet exactly and sign there only ? This clearly proves beyond doubt that he signed exactly after the end of typed matter on each sheet, which means he has seen the contents of typed matter, understood it and signed it. In view of all the observations stated above, it is evident that the respondent is wilfully trying to evade the registration of the sale deed even though he executed the document.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M. Ratna Reddy, firstly contends that the first respondent obtained order from this Court by suppressing the fact of suit filed by first petitioner. He nextly contends that petitioners were not given adequate opportunity though they were present to cross-examine witnesses. He also submits that the orders passed by the second respondent are perverse, in that, though petitioners raised a number of contentions they were not adverted to.