Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri. Vemulapalli Srinivas, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION NO: 17578 of 2024
SRI. VEMULAPALLI SRINIVAS,, S/O VEMULAPALLI
KRISHNA MOHAN RAO AGED 55 YEARS, OCC
BUSINESS, R/O.1134/1, 2ND ROAD, NEAR RTO OFFICE,
SRI LAKSHMI GANAPATHI NAGAR, ELURU, WEST
GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
... Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(STAMPS AND REGISTRATION), A.P. SECRETARIAT,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND OTHERS
... Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 14.08.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
_____________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Page 2 of 13 SRS,J
W.P.No.17578 of 2024
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 17578 OF 2024
% 14.08.2025
Writ Petition No. 17578 of 2024
SRI. VEMULAPALLI SRINIVAS,, S/O VEMULAPALLI
KRISHNA MOHAN RAO AGED 55 YEARS, OCC
BUSINESS, R/O.1134/1, 2ND ROAD, NEAR RTO OFFICE,
SRI LAKSHMI GANAPATHI NAGAR, ELURU, WEST
GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
... Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(STAMPS AND REGISTRATION), A.P. SECRETARIAT,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND OTHERS
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba,
learned counsel
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Divya Teja, Assistant Government
Pleader for Stamps and Registration
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (2010) 12 SCC 112
2) 1959 SCC Madras Online 5
3) 2011 (3) ALD 721
4) 2017 (8) SCC 837
This Court made the following:
Page 3 of 13 SRS,J
W.P.No.17578 of 2024
APHC010343892024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 17578/2024
Between:
1. SRI. VEMULAPALLI SRINIVAS,, S/O VEMULAPALLI KRISHNA
MOHAN RAO AGED 55 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.1134/1, 2ND
ROAD, NEAR RTO OFFICE, SRI LAKSHMI GANAPATHI NAGAR,
ELURU, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (STAMPS AND
REGISTRATION), A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE SUBREGISTRAR, VATLUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
NARASIMHARAOPET ELURU, ANDHRA PRADESH..
4. VEMULAPALLI KRISHNA MOHAN RAO, S/O. VENKATA
CHALAPATHI RAO, AGED 84 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.
KALYANI APARTMENTS, KANDRIKAGUDEM, ELURU, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
Page 4 of 13 SRS,J
W.P.No.17578 of 2024
pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents
No.2 and 3 in removing the entries made in favor of the 4th respondent in EC
as well as in their records inspite of the representation made by the petitioner
dt 15-12-2023 inspite of the decree dt. 01.11.2023 in favor of the petitioner
passed in O.S. No.58 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Eluru, as illegal, arbitrary, against the provision of Stamps and
Registration Act and against all settle principles of law and consequently
direct the Respondents to implement the decree passed in O.S. No.58 of
2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru 01.11.2023
by removing the name of the 4th Respondent from its registrar and
encumbrance certificate
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
pleased to direct the Respondents to consider his representation as to
implement the decree passed in O.S. No.58 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru 01.11.2023 by removing the name of the
4th Respondent from its registrar and encumbrance certificate, pending
disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
The Court made the following:
:: ORDER ::
Heard Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, for the respondents.
2. None appeared for respondent No.4 despite the service of notice.
3. The petitioner and respondent No.4 are son and father, respectively. Respondent No.4 executed a gift deed bearing No.2305 of 2008, dated Page 5 of 13 SRS,J W.P.No.17578 of 2024 31.07.2008 (Ex.P4), in favour of the petitioner in respect of Ac.1-24 cents and Ac.4-00 cents in survey Nos.371/2D2 and 373/2B respectively in Koniki village, Pedapadu Mandal, Vatluru SRO, West Godavari District, and the petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.4 cancelled the gift deed unilaterally, and the same was registered on 10.10.2018 vide document No.2722 of 2018.
4. The petitioner initially filed W.P.No.42568 of 2018, impugning the action of the registering authority in registering the cancellation deed bearing document No.2722 of 2018 dated 10.10.2018 and to declare the document as null and void. The Court, by order dated 07.03.2023 (Ex.P3), dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn as the issue was settled out of court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed suit O.S.No.58 of 2023 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, for a declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction. In the said suit, the defendant, i.e. respondent No.4 herein, remained exparte. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 01.11.2023 (Ex.P2). Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.12.2023 (Ex.P1) to respondent No.2, to make an entry in the encumbrance certificate, mentioning the subject property in the name of the petitioner. Respondent No.2, having received the representation, has not acted upon the same and hence, the writ petition has been filed.
5. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It was contended, inter alia, that in the suit, the sole defendant, i.e. respondent No. 4 herein, remained ex parte. The registering authority has not been impleaded as party defendant and except the declaration passed by the Court that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, no specific direction was issued by the Court to the registering authority to remove the entries made in favour of the respondent No.4. Without impleading the Joint Sub-Registrar, registering authority, as a party defendant, the petitioner has no locus to insist Page 6 of 13 SRS,J W.P.No.17578 of 2024 the registering authority to implement the decree. Unilateral cancellation of registered sale deed dated 31.07.2008, by way of cancellation deed bearing document No.2722 of 2018 dated 10.10.2018, is as per the rules and guidelines. The Sub-Registrar has discharged his duties in good faith. There is no obligation on the part of the Sub-Registrar to cause an enquiry into the validity of the document presented before him for registration, as per Rule 58 of the Registration Rules. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, reiterated the contentions, as per the averments in the writ affidavit and counter affidavit, respectively.
7. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in making an entry in the encumbrance certificate in pursuance of a declaratory decree passed by the competent Civil Court, in the absence of the registering department as party defendant, is illegal and arbitrary?
2) Whether the registering authority shall be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit?
8. When the plaintiff filed a suit, the plaintiff, being dominus litus, will array proper and necessary parties to the suit based on the relief sought. The relief sought in the suit, in the case at hand, filed by the petitioner herein, is to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner did not seek any relief against the registering authority, since according to the plaintiff, it is the defendant who denied title of the plaintiff by executing a deed of cancellation bearing No.2722 of 2018, dated 10.10.2018. Since no relief was sought against the registering authority, there is no obligation on the part of Page 7 of 13 SRS,J W.P.No.17578 of 2024 the plaintiff to implead the registering authority as a party defendant to the suit by complying with Section 80 CPC.
9. Given the discussion supra, the contention of respondent No.2 that since respondent No.2 has not been impleaded as party defendant, the petitioner has no locus to insist on the registering authority to change the name is a misconceived plea. A decree passed by the Civil Court binds the parties to the suit. The registering authority shall accept the degree passed by the competent court.
10. As stated supra, in the case at hand, respondent No.4, father, initially executed a gift deed and later cancelled it, as indicated supra. The petitioner, being non-executant to the document, must necessarily file a suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') instead of a suit for cancellation of the document under Section 31 of the Act. This legal position is settled in this regard.
11. In Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors.,1 the Hon'ble Apex Court, at para No.7, held that where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non- executant seeks annulment of a deed, he must seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him.
12. Thus, as seen from the expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court, a person who is not a party to the document is not obligated to seek cancellation of the document.
13. The upshot of the declaration granted in the suit by the competent Civil Court is that the cancellation deed executed by respondent No.4 is null and void, and further upheld the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule 1 2010 12 SCC 112 Page 8 of 13 SRS,J W.P.No.17578 of 2024 property. Once the competent civil Court declares the title of the litigant and consequently declares the document of cancellation as null and void, the registering authority shall make an entry in the register, acting upon the judgment and decree passed by the Court of a competent jurisdiction.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 31 of the Act delineates when cancellation may be ordered. Section 31(2) describes that if an instrument has been registered under the Registration Act, 1908, the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the Officer in whose office the instrument has been registered, and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in its book, the fact of its cancellation.
15. Of course, no such clause is incorporated in Section 34 of the Relief Act. However, one should not be oblivious of the interplay between Sections 31 and 34 of the Act. A Full Bench of Madras High Court in Muppudathi Pillai v. Krishnaswami Pillai2 considered the scope of Sections 39 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (new sections 31 and 34 of the Act) and observed as follows:
"The principle is that such document though not necessary to be set aside may, if left outstanding, be a source of potential mischief. The jurisdiction under S.39 is, therefore, a protective or a preventive one. It is not confined to a case of fraud, mistake, undue influence etc. and as it has been stated it was to prevent a document to remain as a menace and danger to the party against whom under different circumstances it might have operated. A party against whom a claim under a document might be made is not bound to wait till the document is used against him. If that were so he might be in a disadvantageous position if the impugned document is sought to be used after the evidence attending its execution has disappeared. Section 39 embodies the principle by which he is 2 1959 SCC Madras Online 5 Page 9 of 13 SRS,J W.P.No.17578 of 2024 allowed to anticipate the danger and institute a suit to cancel the document and to deliver it up to him. The principle of the relief is the same as in quia timet actions."
It was further laid down as under:
"The provisions of S.39 make it clear that three conditions are requisite for the exercise of the jurisdiction to cancel an instrument: (1) the instrument is void or voidable against the plaintiff; (2) plaintiff may reasonably apprehend serious injury by the instrument being left outstanding; (3) in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers it proper to grant this relief of preventive justice. On the third aspect of the question, the English and American authorities hold that where the document is void on its face the Court would not exercise its jurisdiction while it would if it were not so apparent. In India it is a matter entirely for the discretion of the Court"
"The question that has to be considered depends on the first and second conditions set out above. As the principle is one of potential mischief, by the document remaining outstanding, it stands to reason the executant of the document should be either the plaintiff or a person who can in certain circumstances bind him. It is only then it could be said that the instrument is voidable by or void against him. The second aspect of the matter emphasizes that principle. For there can be no apprehension if a mere third party, asserting a hostile title creates a document. Thus, relief under S.39 would be granted only in respect of an instrument likely to affect the title of the plaintiff and not of an instrument executed by a stranger to that title."
16. A Division Bench of the composite High Court in Suraneni Lakshmi Vs B.Venkata Durga Rao3, while considering the scope of a 3 2011 (3) ALD 721 Page 10 of 13 SRS,J W.P.No.17578 of 2024 suit for declaration vis-à-vis cancellation of the document, observed as thus:
2......It cannot be lost sight that a suit for declaration of title to be decided by a Court takes into its fold, consideration of several factors as to how the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title. In such cases the plea of the defendants about the validity and binding nature and enforceability of any document defeating the title of the plaintiff have also to be considered. In such cases, the court naturally views the evidence on both sides leaving apart the frame of the suit. Therefore, the lower court found that though specific cancellation is not asked, the declaration of title is as good as a relief of cancellation of the sale deeds and found that the suit is not bad.
It was further observed in para 3 as follows:
Many a time it so happens in a suit for declaration of title apart from of 11 challenges to the alienation against some defendants, there may be connected issues to be decided different to the other parties to the suit. Therefore, the suit for declaration of title is more comprehensive and the objections sought to be raised about the maintainability does not find any strength.
..... It is needless to say that the settled proposition of law is that the provisions under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 are not exhaustive and the court's power to exercise discretion in granting a declaratory decree are wide."
17. Thus, whether the registering authority is a party defendant to the suit or not is irrelevant when the competent civil Court declares the right of a person and when such person brings to the notice of the registering authority the decree passed by the Court. The registering authority shall make an appropriate entry in the register in compliance with the decree. If the registering authority entertains any doubt concerning the genuineness of the decree and judgment, the authority can seek clarification from the Page 11 of 13 SRS,J W.P.No.17578 of 2024 jurisdictional Court. Of course, from a plain reading of Section 31(2) of the Act, the Court also sends a copy of such judgment and decree to the authorities enabling them to make necessary entries in the books. The decree passed by the Civil Court shall be honoured by the registering authority. The registering authority shall not contend that the authority is not a party to the suit whenever a litigant produces an original or certified copy of the judgment and decree.
18. One of the contentions in the counter affidavit is that the judgment passed in the suit is an ex parte judgment. Whether the judgment is an ex parte judgment or on contest, the registering authority has nothing to do with the same. Even an ex parte judgment passed by the Court binds the parties until the same is set aside either by the concerned Court or by the appellate Court. Unless the judgment is set aside, and once it becomes final, the decree holder normally will execute the decree.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Singh v. Shanti Devi4, observed as under:
"12. ... There is no manner of doubt that an ex parte decree is also a valid decree. It has the same force as a decree which is passed on contest. As long as the ex parte decree is not recalled or set aside, it is legal and binding upon the parties. ..."
20. In this case at hand, this Court is not going into the aspect as to whether the unilateral cancellation made by the father is valid or not, since the Civil Court already declared the title of the petitioner and thereby declared the cancelled deed as null and void.
42017 (8) SCC 837 Page 12 of 13 SRS,J W.P.No.17578 of 2024
21. The averments in the counter affidavit regarding locus etc., are obnoxious and in fact, it warrants costs. However, this Court is refraining from imposing costs.
22. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents 2 and 3 shall make an entry in encumbrance certificate as per the judgment and decree concerning the property of an extent of Ac.4-00 cents and Ac.1-24 cents in R.S.Nos.373/2B and 371/2D2 respectively, Koniki village, Pedapadu Mandal, Vatluru SRO, West Godavari District, the suit schedule property in the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2023 in O.S.No.58 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru forthwith. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 14.08.2025 IKN Page 13 of 13 SRS,J W.P.No.17578 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 17578/2024 Date : 14.08.2025 IKN