GAMYA KARANAM MADHU Vs. STATE OF A P AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-2019-3-129
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 07,2019

Gamya Karanam Madhu Appellant
VERSUS
State Of A P And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M. Seetharama Murthi, J. - (1.)This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking verbatim the following relief:
".. to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in not releasing the P.248 of 20187 dt. 29-06-2018 and P. 249 of 2018 dt.30-06-2018 even after registration of the sale deed and mortgage deed pertaining to the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to release registered sale deed to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

(2.)I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though no counter has been filed by the official respondents, learned Government Pleader appearing for the said respondents orally resisted the writ petition, based on the written instructions, dated 29-01-2019, a copy of which is placed on record. I have perused the material record.
(3.)The case of the petitioner, in brief, is this: 'One Muniamma was the owner of the house property bearing Municipal Door Nos. 18-697, 698 and 699 admeasuring 115 Sq. yards situated at Muthu Mestry Streets, Chittoor Town. The petitioner purchased the said property from the said Muniamma for a valuable consideration of Rs. 95,00,000/- after availing loan from M/s. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited ('DHFL'). The petitioner paid huge stamp duty of Rs. 4,74,100/-, vide challan, dated 14-06-2018. The petitioner paid transfer duty of Rs. 1,42,500/- & Rs. 19,000/- vide challans, dated 14-06-2018 & 29-06-2018. She had also paid registration fee of 95,000/- vide challan, dated 14.06.2018, along with user charges of Rs. 250/- for registration of the sale deed executed by the said vendor in favour of the petitioner. When the document is presented for registration before the 4th respondent-Joint Sub Registrar, Chittoor, necessary receipt and presentation No.248 of 2018 were generated. However, the respondents did not release the document till date even after registration of the sale deed. The respondents also did not release the mortgage deed, which is related to the mortgage transaction in favour of the creditor. When the petitioner made enquiries, she came to know that the son of the vendor filed a suit for partition against the vendor and that a Civil Court passed orders not to alienate the property. However, as per the settled law, registration of a document cannot be stopped by the registration authorities for whatever reasons. The mere pendency of a partition suit does not prevent either the vendor from executing a registered sale deed or the purchaser from obtaining a registered sale deed. Since the property was purchased by availing loan from M/s. DHFL, the officers of the said Finance Company are harassing the petitioner for submitting house property sale deed and deed of mortgage; and, though the petitioner was not at fault, they are threatening the petitioner by stating that the petitioner has to face prosecution. The sale deed, after its registration has to be submitted to the Financier as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. Further, the memorandum of mortgage executed in favour of M/s. DHFL is also pending before the 4th respondent for registration; vide P.249/2018, dated 30.06.2018. The petitioner, who is a purchaser, is not a party to the litigation between the vendor and her son. Hence, the respondents ought to have released the sale deed and the mortgage deed. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.'
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.