SIRIKI APPALASWAMY Vs. SUB REGISTRAR PENDURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that he had succeeded to the landed property to an extent of Ac. 0. 16 cents in Survey no. 43/21, Ac. 0. 14 cents in Survey no. 43/22, Ac. 0. 29 cents in Survey no. 43/23, Ac. 0. 18 cents in Survey no. 43/10 and Ac. 0. 02 cents in Survey no. 43/9 covered by T. D. No. 1406, situated in Rajayyapet village, Visakhapatnam, from his father, namely Siriki Sanyasi and maternal uncle, namely Rayavarapu chinnayya, after their death. The petitioner states that his father and maternal uncle purchased the aforesaid property from their vendor, namely Sri Pilla Papayya Patrudu and two others under registered document no. 3861, dated 12-12-1968, registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, visakhapatnam, and since then they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner states that several of his relatives had also purchased lands in the said survey numbers during the period 18-4-1968 to 1-6-1970.

(2.) THE petitioner states that taking advantage of the non-mutation of their names in the revenue records, the legal heirs of their original vendors, entered into an agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of attorney, dated 19-2-2008 with one Chinta srinivasa Reddy, resident of Pasalapudi village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari district, to sell a total extent of Ac. 2. 23 cents of land in different survey numbers -Ac. 0. 30 cents in Survey No. 43/10, Ac. 0. 09 cents in Survey No. 44/6, Ac. 0. 52 cents in survey No. 44/12, Ac. 0. 08 cents in Survey no. 44/17, Ac. 0. 05 cents in Survey no. 53/10, Ac. 0. 09 cents in Survey no. 53/16, Ac. 0. 11 cents in Survey no. 56/14, Ac. 0. 15 cents in Survey no. 56/17, Ac. 0. 20 cents in Survey no. 60/11 and Ac. 0. 38 cents in Survey no. 60/14, despite their publishing a notice dated 28-9-2007 through his Advocate in newspapers cautioning the general public not to enter into any transactions for purchase of said lands, as they belong to him.

(3.) THE petitioner states that he submitted objection petition dated 20-2-2008 to the respondent, namely the Sub-Registrar, pendurthi, Visakhapatnam District, through his advocate not to entertain any document for registration in respect of the lands in question owned by him. As directed by the registrar, the petitioner states that he submitted a written objection, enclosing copies of decree and sale deeds and requesting the respondent not to receive and register any document to be presented by others because they are not genuine documents. However, the petitioner states that the respondent, vide proceedings dated 20-2-2008 passed orders stating that registration of document cannot be stopped on the ground mentioned in the petition and that he has to take recourse to Court of law, if so advised, and thereafter, the petitioner states that on 25-2-2008, the respondent entertained the document presented by the legal heirs of their original vendors executed in favour of Chintha Srinivasa Reddy alienating the land in question and registered the same as document No. 469 of 2008.