APHC010001562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESJJ- AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR-^ WRIT APPEAL NO: 99 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order in W.P.No.3985 of 2022, dt. 14-09-2022 on the file of the Court. -- Between: 1. Smt Mallela Shyamala, W/o Late Mallela Raghupathi Aged about 80 R/O.D.N0.20-2-605/A, Maruthi Nagar, House wife. years, Occu Korlagunta, Tirupathi, Chittor-District (Present Balaji Tirupathi District) State of Andhra Pradesh 2. Sri.Mallela Jayaprakash, S/o.Late Mallela Raghupathi, Aged 47 years, Occu Business, R/O.D.NO.20-2-605/A, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupathi, Chittor-District (Present Balaji Tirupathi District) State of Andhra Pradesh 3. Sri.Mallela Chetan Krishna, S/o.Sri.Mallela Jayaprakash Aged 21 R/O.D.NO.20-2-605/A, Maruthi Nagar, years, Occu Korlagunta, Tirupathi, Chittor-District (Present Balaji Tirupathi District) Business State of Andhra Pradesh 4. Sri.Mallela Gnana Krishna, S/o.Sri.Mallela Jayaprakash Aged 20 R/O.D.NO.20-2-605/A, Maruthi Nagar, Business, Years, Occ Korlagunta, Tirupathi, Chittor-District (Present Balaji Tirupathi District) State of Andhra Pradesh 5. Smt. Anumala Yasodha, W/o.Anumala Praveen Kumar Aged 54 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 10/13/1, M.S. Road, Prabha Medicals Railway Kodur, Kadapa District. State of AP. 6. Smt.Gajala Saritha, W/o.Gajala Srinivasa Rao, Aged 52 Years, Occ House Wife, R/o. 15/72, Panchali Nagar, Renigunta, Chittor District, State of AP 7. Kum.Mallela Krishna Veni, D/o.Late S ri. M. Ragupathi Aged 51 Years, Occu Nil R/o.20-2-605 (A), Korlagunta, Maruthi Nagar, Tirupathi Tirupathi District, State of AP. ...Petitioners AND 1. Sri C Subrahmanyam, S/o. Late C. Munaswamy, Aged 50 years, Occu Business, R/o.D.No.2-2-331/1, Chintakayala Street, Tirupathi Town, Tirupati District, State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Smt. C Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Sri.C.Subrahmanyam, Aged 40 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.D.No.2-2-331/1, Chintakayala Street Tirupathi Town, Tirupati District State of Andhra Pradesh. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, State of Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Commissioner and Inspector General Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. 5. The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Sri Balaji Registration District Tirupathi, Tirupati District. 6. The Sub Registrar, Tirupathi Rural, Tirupati District. ...Respondents lA NO: 4 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 14.09.2022 passed in W.P NO. 3985 of 2022. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VARDHINEEDI SAI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI K SARVA BHOUMA RAO ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 : GP FOR REGISTRATION AND _ STAMPS The Court made the following Judgment; 1 APHC010001562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 99/2025 Between: ...APPELLANT(S) Smt Mallela Shyamala and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Sri C Subrahmanyam and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.VARDHINEEDI SAI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.... 2.K SARVA BHOUMA RAO 3.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The property in dispute, in the present Writ Appeal, is Ac.0.94 cents of land in Sy.No. 20/B2A/1 of Avilala Village, Tirupathi. The aforesaid property is admitted by all sides, to have belonged to M. Raghupathi, who had been gifted this property by his brother. 2 7^ 2. Sri M. Raghupathi passed respondent claiming to be the beneficiary of an unregistered Will, dated 19.03.2021, said to have been executed by Sri M. Raghupathi, executed a deed of sale, on 02.08.2021, in favour of his wife, who is the 2^^ respondent herein. This deed of sale, when presented for registration was rejected. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the respondents had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.18186 of 2021, which came to be disposed of with a direction to the registering authorities to permit registration, after verification and that a reasoned order should be passed if the document was being rejected. away on 15.04.2021. The 1 3. Thereafter, the respondents again presented another deed of sale, dated 29.11.2021, wherein the 1®' respondent, claiming to be the beneficiary of the unregistered Will, dated 19.03.2021, again executed another deed of sale in favour of his wife, who is the 2"^^ respondent herein, and presented the document for registration. This document was also rejected by the Registrar. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the respondents again approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.3985 of 2022, which came to be allowed on 14.09.2022. Thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 approached the office of the Registrar, for registration of the said document. As the said registration was not being completed, C.C.No.13 of 2023 came to be filed. Initially this contempt case came up before the learned Single Judge and subsequently transferred to this Court along with the review petition in W.P.No.3985 of 2022. The Registering Authorities, apart from keeping the was 3 document pending for registration, had also moved I.A.No.1 of 2023 for reviewing the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 14.09.2022. The appellants herein, who were not party to the writ petition, have filed the present appeal with leave. 4. The case of respondents 1 and 2 is that late Sri M. Raghupathi, out of his love and affection for them and out of regard for the care they had taken in maintaining his health, is said to have executed an unregistered Will, dated 19.03.2021, bequeathing the aforesaid Ac.0.94 72 cents of land to 1®‘ respondent. Thereafter, two deeds of sale were sought to be executed and registered on the ground that the 2"^ respondent had actually paid a sum of Rs.2.55 crores to late M. Raghupathi and the deed of sale was being executed by the 1®' respondent in favour of the 2"^^ respondent on account of the agreement between late M. Raghupathi and 2"^^ respondent for sale of the said land. 5. The appellant herein would contend that the said unregistered Will, dated 19.03.2021, is a fabrication. Apart from this, the appellants would also contend that there has been suppression of information and facts by respondents 1 and 2. It is contended that such suppression is sufficient to non-suit respondents 1 and 2 before this Court. Apart from this, it is also contended that this suppression is sufficient to reject the documents that sought to be registered now. are 4 6. The case of the appellants is that late M. Raghupathi had executed and registered a Will deed, dated 26.07.2012, as document No.217/12, in the office of the District Registrar, Tirupathi. Late M. Raghupathi had three daughters and a son and had left all his property including the subject property to his children and to his wife in the said deed of Will. Thereafter, after the demise of Sri M. Raghupathi, a criminal complaint came to be filed against respondents 1 and 2, on the ground that they were suspected of killing Sri M. Raghupathi. Apart from this, the appellants herein had moved O.S.No.29 of 2022 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for an injunction restraining the respondents from executing any documents of alienation of the said property. 7. The appellants pointed out to various contradictions in the pleadings and the averments in the deeds of sale apart from the statements in the Will deed, dated 19.03.2021. 8. The said contradictions are— a) In the deed of sale, dated 19.03.2021, the property is said to have been bequeathed to the 1®* respondent on the ground of love and affection and on the ground that respondents 1 and 2 had taken great care of late M. Raghupathi who is said to have been abandoned by his family; b) In the written statement filed in O.S.No.29 of 2022, it is stated that Sri M. Raghupathi and one of his daughters had cheated the 1®* 5 0 respondent in jewellary business and had executed Will for the purpose of compensating respondents 1 and 2; c) In both the sale deeds, it is stated that there was an agreement of sale between Sri M. Raghupathi and the 2"^ respondent under which Sri M. Raghupathi is said to have received a sum of Rs.2.55 crores, in various installments and that the deed of sale was being executed to honour the said agreement of sale as the entire consideration is said to have paid by the 2"^^ respondent. It is stated that these contradictory statements are sufficient to show that there is a clear manipulation and fraud committed by respondents 1 and 2. The appellant would also contend that a comparison of the signatures of Sri M. Raghupathi in the registered deed of sale and the unregistered Will deed is sufficient to make out a case of forgery. 9. Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would dispute the aforesaid contentions and denies these allegations. Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao would further contend that the 10. order of the learned Single Judge is strictly in accordance with law. He would submit that the function of a registering authority is to verify whether the necessary procedures have been followed and whether the document presented for registration is in order. He would submit that the registering authority cannot go into the question of title of the persons presenting the documents and as such, the question of going into the title of 1®* respondent 6 or the other averments in the deed of sale would be beyond the scope of enquiry by the registering authority. 11. The aforesaid submissions raise various questions of fact and law which need to be gone into. We are aware of the fact that these disputes raised before us at the stage of appeal, whereas these are the issues which should have been raised before the learned Single Judge himself. These issues could not be raised before the learned Single Judge in view of the fact that the appellants were not made party to the Writ Petition. As the appellants are not party to the writ petition, they are hereby impleaded as respondents 5 to 7 in the writ petition. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set- aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge for appropriate directions and for an appropriate decision as to the disputes raised before the learned Single Judge including the question of whether the learned Single Judge would be going into these disputes. are 12. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. no As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-M.RAMESH BAB5J DEPUTY REGISTER //TRUE COPY// section officer To, 1. The Principal Secretary Registration), State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue (Stamps and Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, State of Andhra Pradesh 2. The Commissioner and Inspector General Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. 3. The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Sri Balaji Registration District Tirupathi, Tirupati District. 4. The Sub Registrar, Tirupathi Rural, Tirupati District. 5. One CC to Sri Vardhineedi Sai Kiran, Advocate [OPUC]' 6. One CC to Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Registration and Stamps, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies Cnr 'A HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 JUDGMENT WA NO. 99 OF 2025 I 21 AUG 2025 M ^ . Current Section . DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPAL WITHOUT COSTS