Pereddy Raghava Reddy Vs. the Govt. of A.P. and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/950241
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided OnApr-12-2012
Case NumberWRIT PETITION NO. 31060 OF 2010
Judge L. NARASIMHA REDDY
AppellantPereddy Raghava Reddy
RespondentThe Govt. of A.P. and Others
Excerpt:
order: the petitioner challenges memo, dated 26.04.2010 issued by the commissioner and inspector general of stamps and registration and stamps, 2nd respondent herein and the consequential proceedings, dated 06.05.2010 issued by the district registrar, ranga reddy district, 4th respondent herein.the facts, that gave rise to the filing of the writ petition, are as under: the petitioner purchased a plot of about 1000 square yards in survey no.52 of gachibowli village, serilingampally mandal from syed zaheeruddin and mohammad yousuf ali through a sale deed, dated 18.01.2005.  his vendors in turn purchased it from sri harish madan on 18.03.1995.  the latter purchased the plot from one sri prabhakar reddy through sale deed, dated 31.03.1990.  prabhakar reddy in turn purchased it from m/s kasthopa corporation through a sale deed dated 30.04.1987, bearing document no.4105 of 1987.petitioner purchased another plot in the immediate neighbourhood from the same vendors on the same day. the vendors of this plot purchased it from s.k.madan and his vendor was mr.gangaiah.  here again, the original owner was m/s.kasthopa corporation.  gangaiah purchased the plot through a sale deed dated 30.04.1987, bearing document no.4106/87. the petitioner filed o.s.no.898 of 2005 in the court of i additional senior civil judge, ranga reddy district at l.b.nagar against mohd. zaheeruddin, respondent no.6 herein; for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the second plot.  an order of temporary injunction was also passed.  during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sold the first plot in favour of sri y.ravi prasad and smt. p.jaya pradha in the year 2006 and the second plot to sri b. dayakar reddy.  the purchasers were impleaded as parties to the suit.  in the trial of the suit, the 6th respondent filed a letter, dated 25.09.2009 addressed by the deputy inspector general-i, registration and stamps, 3rd respondent herein and it was marked as ex.b.13.  according to the said letter, sri v.surender reddy, 7th respondent herein submitted a letter, dated 29.06.2009 to the 2nd respondent stating that he purchased the second plot mentioned above from sri abdul haqueeb in the year 2007 and in the process of verification of the title, he came to know that in the document bearing no.4106/87, the purchaser was shown as v.madhuri, whereas in the encumbrance certificate, in relation to the said property, it was mentioned that one sri gangaiah is the purchaser under the sale deed bearing the same number.  though his letter, dated 25.09.2009, the 2nd respondent expressed the view that interpolations were made in the document no.4106/07 and that the name of gangaiah was inserted after erasing the name of madhuri.  similar observation was made in respect of the document no.4105/1987, duly indicating the concerned names.taking the letter, dated 25.09.2009, into account, the 2nd respondent addressed the impugned letter dated 26.04.2010 requiring the 4th respondent to take necessary steps to rebuild the document.  the 4th respondent in turn issued memo, dated 06.05.2010 directing the joint sub-registrar-i to call for the original documents from the concerned parties and to mention the names of neelima and madhuri in the records pertaining to the documents bearing nos.4105/87 and 4106/87.the petitioner contends that the impugned memo has the effect of taking away the very basis of the sale in his favour and that respondents 2 to 4 ought to have issued notice to him and other persons interested in the property before they formed opinion.  he submits that respondents 2 to 4 did not follow the procedure prescribed under the registration act and the rules made thereunder.  it is also urged that the unilateral correction of sale deeds would have serious repercussions including the one of nullifying the subsequent transactions and that such a step ought not to have been taken without issuing notice to all the concerned. on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit.  he has furnished the gist of comparison of documents bearing nos.4105/87 and 4106/87, with the original record. he states that in the document bearing no.4105/87, ms. v.neelima figured as purchaser, whereas in another document with the same number, the name of prabhakar reddy was mentioned.  in the other document bearing no.4106/87, the names of madhuri and gangaiah respectively have occurred.  the manner in which the stamp papers were purchased or signatures were put, is elaborated.  it is also stated that the steps were taken in accordance with law, to ensure that the record is put straight. the 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner are the result of interpolation and fraud.  according to him, respondents 2 to 4 have undertaken an in depth enquiry into matter and on finding that the original record itself was tampered with, necessary corrective measures were taken.  respondents 7 to 9 also filed counter affidavit almost on the same lines. sri r. mahender reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the petitioner purchased the two plots mentioned above, he verified the entire record and he has also obtained the encumbrance certificates.  it is stated that only on finding that there is a clear title in vendor, petitioner purchased the plots.  he submits that in case, respondents 2 to 4 found that any meddling or interpolation of records has taken place, they ought to have issued notices not only to the persons, whose names figured in the documents, but also to those, who acquired right or interest in the property, subsequently.  learned counsel further submits that proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice and they deserve to be set aside.  he contends that the respondents did not follow the prescribed procedure nor they have taken adequate steps to preserve the records as required under law. learned government pleader for revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 5, sri h.venugopal, learned counsel for respondent no.6, and sri a.rajasekhar reddy, learned counsel for respondents 7 to 9 on the other hand submit that the two plots were sold by the original owner viz., m/s.kasthopa corporation under sale deeds dated 30.04.1987 bearing document nos.4105 and 4106 of 1987 in favour of neelima and madhuri and by substituting the names of the two persons, with those of prabhakar reddy and gangaiah respectively, series of transactions were brought into existence fraudulently.  they submit that their clients have derived title from the actual purchasers from m/s. kasthopa corporation. the petitioner claims title in respect of two plots on the strength of two sale deeds dated 18.01.2005. within a short time thereafter, he sold the plots in favour of third parties.  the petitioner on the one hand and the contesting respondents on the other hand agree that the original owner of the plots was m/s.kasthopa corporation. that in turn executed two sale deeds dated 30.04.1987 bearing document nos.4105/87 and 4106/87.  the whole controversy is as to who were the purchasers under those documents.  according to the series of documents, that constituted the basis for the petitioner to purchase the plots, the purchasers under those two documents i.e., 4105/87 and 4106/87 are prabhakar reddy and gangaiah respectively.  the contesting respondents on the other hand plead that neelima and madhuri respectively are the purchasers. as of now, two sets of persons are claiming title in respect of the same property.  the dichotomy of transactions took place from documents nos. 4105/87 and 4106/87 onwards.  any finding on the contents of those documents as regards purchasers is likely to have the effect of nullifying the title of one set of persons. respondents 2 to 4 have undertaken extensive verification of the documents on receiving a complaint from respondent no.7.  the letters addressed or proceedings issued by them do not disclose that any attempt was made to verify the facts from the affected persons.  they ought to have verified from m/s.kasthopa corporation as to in whose favour, they have sold the plots.  in addition to that, they were under obligation to verify whether any subsequent sales have taken place and issue notice to such purchasers.  the persons whose names figure in the documents have lost their interest by selling the plots to others. the impact of any decision would be on the latest of the purchasers and not on the persons whose names figure in document nos.4105/87 and 4106/87 or the transferees, in between.further, the respondents cannot take the plea that when the facts are borne out by record, no one can have any plausible explanation and that issuance of show cause notice would be nugatory.  reference can be made to the judgment of the hon’ble supreme court in volga tellis vs. bombay municipal corporation air 1986 supreme court 180. it was held that howsoever strong or weak the defence of an effected person may be, he cannot be denied the opportunity of being heard.  it cannot denied that the impugned orders have the effect of shaking the very basis of the title of the petitioner to the plots in question or of his purchasers.  such order could not have been passed except by following the principles of natural justice.  hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside.  the 4th respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and other persons who are found to have acquired interest in the property; and pass appropriate orders after verifying the record and considering the objections or representations that may be made by the parties.  this exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of issuing the show cause notice.the miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.  there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

ORDER:

The petitioner challenges memo, dated 26.04.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration and Stamps, 2nd respondent herein and the consequential proceedings, dated 06.05.2010 issued by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, 4th respondent herein.The facts, that gave rise to the filing of the writ petition, are as under:

The petitioner purchased a plot of about 1000 square yards in Survey No.52 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal from Syed Zaheeruddin and Mohammad Yousuf Ali through a sale deed, dated 18.01.2005.  His vendors in turn purchased it from Sri Harish Madan on 18.03.1995.  The latter purchased the plot from one Sri Prabhakar Reddy through sale deed, dated 31.03.1990.  Prabhakar Reddy in turn purchased it from M/s Kasthopa Corporation through a sale deed dated 30.04.1987, bearing document No.4105 of 1987.Petitioner purchased another plot in the immediate neighbourhood from the same vendors on the same day. The vendors of this plot purchased it from S.K.Madan and his vendor was Mr.Gangaiah.  Here again, the original owner was M/s.Kasthopa Corporation.  Gangaiah purchased the plot through a sale deed dated 30.04.1987, bearing document No.4106/87.

The petitioner filed O.S.No.898 of 2005 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against Mohd. Zaheeruddin, respondent No.6 herein; for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the second plot.  An order of temporary injunction was also passed.  During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sold the first plot in favour of Sri Y.Ravi Prasad and Smt. P.Jaya Pradha in the year 2006 and the second plot to Sri B. Dayakar Reddy.  The purchasers were impleaded as parties to the suit.  In the trial of the suit, the 6th respondent filed a letter, dated 25.09.2009 addressed by the Deputy Inspector General-I, Registration and Stamps, 3rd respondent herein and it was marked as Ex.B.13.  According to the said letter, Sri V.Surender Reddy, 7th respondent herein submitted a letter, dated 29.06.2009 to the 2nd respondent stating that he purchased the second plot mentioned above from Sri Abdul Haqueeb in the year 2007 and in the process of verification of the title, he came to know that in the document bearing No.4106/87, the purchaser was shown as V.Madhuri, whereas in the encumbrance certificate, in relation to the said property, it was mentioned that one Sri Gangaiah is the purchaser under the sale deed bearing the same number.  Though his letter, dated 25.09.2009, the 2nd respondent expressed the view that interpolations were made in the document No.4106/07 and that the name of Gangaiah was inserted after erasing the name of Madhuri.  Similar observation was made in respect of the document No.4105/1987, duly indicating the concerned names.Taking the letter, dated 25.09.2009, into account, the 2nd respondent addressed the impugned letter dated 26.04.2010 requiring the 4th respondent to take necessary steps to rebuild the document.  The 4th respondent in turn issued memo, dated 06.05.2010 directing the Joint Sub-Registrar-I to call for the original documents from the concerned parties and to mention the names of Neelima and Madhuri in the records pertaining to the documents bearing Nos.4105/87 and 4106/87.The petitioner contends that the impugned memo has the effect of taking away the very basis of the sale in his favour and that respondents 2 to 4 ought to have issued notice to him and other persons interested in the property before they formed opinion.  He submits that respondents 2 to 4 did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder.  It is also urged that the unilateral correction of sale deeds would have serious repercussions including the one of nullifying the subsequent transactions and that such a step ought not to have been taken without issuing notice to all the concerned.

On behalf of respondents 2 to 4, the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit.  He has furnished the gist of comparison of documents bearing Nos.4105/87 and 4106/87, with the original record. He states that in the document bearing No.4105/87, Ms. V.Neelima figured as purchaser, whereas in another document with the same number, the name of Prabhakar Reddy was mentioned.  In the other document bearing No.4106/87, the names of Madhuri and Gangaiah respectively have occurred.  The manner in which the stamp papers were purchased or signatures were put, is elaborated.  It is also stated that the steps were taken in accordance with law, to ensure that the record is put straight.

The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner are the result of interpolation and fraud.  According to him, respondents 2 to 4 have undertaken an in depth enquiry into matter and on finding that the original record itself was tampered with, necessary corrective measures were taken.  Respondents 7 to 9 also filed counter affidavit almost on the same lines.

Sri R. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the petitioner purchased the two plots mentioned above, he verified the entire record and he has also obtained the encumbrance certificates.  It is stated that only on finding that there is a clear title in vendor, petitioner purchased the plots.  He submits that in case, respondents 2 to 4 found that any meddling or interpolation of records has taken place, they ought to have issued notices not only to the persons, whose names figured in the documents, but also to those, who acquired right or interest in the property, subsequently.  Learned counsel further submits that proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice and they deserve to be set aside.  He contends that the respondents did not follow the prescribed procedure nor they have taken adequate steps to preserve the records as required under law.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 5, Sri H.Venugopal, learned counsel for respondent No.6, and Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 7 to 9 on the other hand submit that the two plots were sold by the original owner viz., M/s.Kasthopa Corporation under sale deeds dated 30.04.1987 bearing document Nos.4105 and 4106 of 1987 in favour of Neelima and Madhuri and by substituting the names of the two persons, with those of Prabhakar Reddy and Gangaiah respectively, series of transactions were brought into existence fraudulently.  They submit that their clients have derived title from the actual purchasers from M/s. Kasthopa Corporation.

The petitioner claims title in respect of two plots on the strength of two sale deeds dated 18.01.2005. Within a short time thereafter, he sold the plots in favour of third parties.  The petitioner on the one hand and the contesting respondents on the other hand agree that the original owner of the plots was M/s.Kasthopa Corporation. That in turn executed two sale deeds dated 30.04.1987 bearing document Nos.4105/87 and 4106/87.  The whole controversy is as to who were the purchasers under those documents.  According to the series of documents, that constituted the basis for the petitioner to purchase the plots, the purchasers under those two documents i.e., 4105/87 and 4106/87 are Prabhakar Reddy and Gangaiah respectively.  The contesting respondents on the other hand plead that Neelima and Madhuri respectively are the purchasers.

As of now, two sets of persons are claiming title in respect of the same property.  The dichotomy of transactions took place from documents Nos. 4105/87 and 4106/87 onwards.  Any finding on the contents of those documents as regards purchasers is likely to have the effect of nullifying the title of one set of persons.

Respondents 2 to 4 have undertaken extensive verification of the documents on receiving a complaint from respondent No.7.  The letters addressed or proceedings issued by them do not disclose that any attempt was made to verify the facts from the affected persons.  They ought to have verified from M/s.Kasthopa Corporation as to in whose favour, they have sold the plots.  In addition to that, they were under obligation to verify whether any subsequent sales have taken place and issue notice to such purchasers.  The persons whose names figure in the documents have lost their interest by selling the plots to others. The impact of any decision would be on the latest of the purchasers and not on the persons whose names figure in document Nos.4105/87 and 4106/87 or the transferees, in between.Further, the respondents cannot take the plea that when the facts are borne out by record, no one can have any plausible explanation and that issuance of show cause notice would be nugatory.  Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in VolgA Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT 180. It was held that howsoever strong or weak the defence of an effected person may be, he cannot be denied the opportunity of being heard.  It cannot denied that the impugned orders have the effect of shaking the very basis of the title of the petitioner to the plots in question or of his purchasers.  Such order could not have been passed except by following the principles of natural justice. 

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside.  The 4th respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and other persons who are found to have acquired interest in the property; and pass appropriate orders after verifying the record and considering the objections or representations that may be made by the parties.  This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of issuing the show cause notice.The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.