TIRUMALA VENKATA REDDIA CHOWDARY Vs. POTIA KRISHNA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are minors, are represented by their mother and natural guardian. The petitioners' mother, who had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that the petitioners succeeded to the property in question from their ancestors. While so, she states that the petitioners came to know that their father executed a registered sale agreement-cum- General Power of Attorney dated 09.10.2008 in respect of the property in question in favour of respondent No.1, who on the strength thereof, is seeking to alienate the property in question. On coming to know of this, she states that the petitioners got issued paper publication dated 10.04.2008 cautioning the general public from entering into any sort of agreements with respondent No.1, and they also filed suit in O.S. No. 495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, seeking permanent injunction, and pending thereof, in I.A. No. 269 of 2008, they obtained interim injunction, and thereafter, approached respondent No.2, namely Sub Registrar, Gundala, requesting him not to entertain any sale deed in respect of the land in question, but they were informed by respondent No.2 that he has no right to stop the registration of sale deed for any property, except when there is a direction from the Court restraining him from entertaining any documents for registration in respect of the property covered by the proceedings before it. Hence, assailing the said action of respondent No.2, as being illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though respondent No.2 is not a party to the proceedings in O.S. No.495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, but having regard to the fact that there is an ad interim injunction order granted by the said Court in I.A. No. 269 of 2008 on 18.04.2008 in respect of the property in question, the same is binding on respondent No.2, and therefore, respondent No.2 cannot contend that since there is no direction to him, he has no power to stop registration of a document.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that S.O. No. 219 of the A.P. Registration Manual, prohibits the Registering Officer from entertaining documents for registration when there is an injunction order granted by the competent Civil Court or the High Court, but having regard to the fact that respondent No.2 is not a party to the suit in O.S. No. 495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, the order of interim injunction, granted by the said Court in I.A. No. 269 of 2008, is not binding on respondent No.2, and he is not under an obligation to stop registration of the property in question.