T.VINOD RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri A.Yadav Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

(2.) Petitioners claim that they intend to purchase land to an extent of Ac.1-07 guntas in Sy.No.1 of Thimmaipally village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. When the deed of conveyance executed by the vendor and vendee, was presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar, by his order, dated 19.04.2018, refused to register the document on the ground that on the said property, an injunction order in I.A.No.417 of 2016 in O.S.No.453 of 2016 granted by the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, is operating. The Appeal No.02 of 2018 preferred by the petitioners was also rejected on 02.11.2018. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the implead respondent submits that the subject property which petitioners purchased and the document sought to be presented concerns Ac.1-07 guntas in S.No.1 of Thimmaipally Village with boundaries, on the Northern side- Agricultural land of M.Narsimha, Southern side -Agricultural land of Kandadi Family, Eastern side- Agricultural land of T.R.Venkatesh & land of vendees and Western side- Agricultural land of M.Ramakrishna & M.Gopi, whereas, the subject matter of the suit is land to an extent of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.1 and part of Sy.No.2 to an extent of Ac.3-00 with boundaries on the Northern side- PWD road from Timmayapalli to Keesara, Southern sideSy.No.3 of Narsaiah, Western side-Sy.No.1 remaining part and Sy.No.5 and Eastern side- Sy.No.2 part remaining land and subject land is not the same. I.A.No.417 of 2016 was considered by the learned trial Judge and by her order dated 15.12.2016 allowed the I.A., granting temporary injunction in favour of petitioner therein, restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule property. The vendors of the petitioners who were respondents 5, 6 and 7, in the said I.A., represented before the trial Court, that they are not claiming any right over petition schedule property within the boundaries. Taking note of the same, the trial Judge observed that no prejudice would be caused to them, if temporary injunction is granted in respect of petition schedule property.