IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT^ MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNAN AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RA^ WRIT APPEAL NO: 53 OF 2025 ^ Writ Appeal under clause I5^f the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12.12.2024 in W.P.No.29090 of 2024 on the file of the High Court.^ Between: 1. Pilli Nagamani, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged 49 years, R/o. D No. 1-70, Narsipudi Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District 2. Pilli Veera Manikanta, S/ o. Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years, R/o. D No. 1- 70, Narsipudi Village Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District 3. Dongala Sridhar, S/o. Baskara Ramana, aged 47 years R/o. D No. 3- 143, Vagayammapeta Village Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District 4. Dongala Sunitha, W/o.Dongala Sridhar, aged 38 years R/o. D No. 3- 143, Vagayammapeta Village Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS Nos.6,8,9 and 10 _ AND 1. Paliki Srinu, S/o. Satyam, Aged 41 years, Occ. Business, R/o. D No. 28- 3/2, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Presently residing at Dr.no. 7-55 main road, Ventooru Velle Road, Chellore- 533261. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER — 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its PrI. Secretary, Stamps and Registration Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District .3. The District Register, Amalapuram Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District 4. The Sub Registrar, Draksharama, Ramchandrauram Mandal, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 5. Katta Govindu, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Aged 49 years. Cultivation, R/o. D No. 4-55 China Thallapolam Village, Ramchandrauram Mandal, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District 6. Pilli Naga Suri Babu, S/o. Vijaya Bhaskara Rao Aged 36 years, R/o. D No. 5-89, Pamarru Village K,.Gangavaram Mandal, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District 7. Kudupudi Janakamma, W/o. Venkata Prasad Aged 48 years, Occ. housewife, R/o. D No., 42-4-3 Kothapeta, Rajamahendravaram Mandal, EG District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS No.4,5,7 lA NO: 2 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 to suspend the operation of the Order dated 12.12.2024 made in W.P.No. 29090 of 2024 by allowing the above writ appeal, pending disposal of main Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS - Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N. RAVI PRASAD - Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7:— The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010032352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] Wd MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 53/2025 Between: Pilli Nagamani and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Paliki Srinu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RAVI PRASAD 2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent herein, had filed O.S.No.207 of 2015, against one Smt. K. Anantha Lakshmi and Sri K. Govindu for recovery of money. During the pendency of the suit, the Trial Court had granted an attachment of certain property belonging to Smt. K. Anantha Lakshmi, being an extent of Ac. 1.24 72 cents in various surveys of Jagannayakulapalem Village. This order, dated 01.04.2015, subsisted during the pendency of the suit, which came to be decreed, on 07,07.2015. Thereafter, the 1®' respondent, had filed E.P.No.135 2 RRR,J&Dr.KMR,J W.A.No.53of2025 of 2018, for recovery of money by way of sale of attached property. At that stage, the 1®' respondent, came to know that, Smt. K. Anantha Lakshmi, had registered three settlement deeds, on 01.10.2016, alienating the property in daughter respectively. nd daughter & 3' favour of her grandson, 2 Subsequently, in the year, 2019, the settlement deed executed in favour of the 3'^' daughter was cancelled and a fresh settlement deed was executed in favour of her another grandson. Litigation insured in relation to the aforesaid cancellation and subsequent registration of a fresh settlement deed. 2. The 1®‘ respondent having come to know this alienation, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.29090 of 2024, seeking a direction to the Registration Authorities not to register any property, in relation to the aforesaid Ac.1.24 y2 cents of land in various surveys of Jagannayakulapalem Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by a judgment, dated 12.12.2024, had disposed of the Writ Petition, at the admission stage, without going into the merits of the case, by according limited protection to the 1®‘ respondent for a period of twelve (12) weeks, to enable the 1®‘ respondent to approach the Execution Court for seeking appropriate relief. The learned Single Judge, had directed the Registration Authorities not to register any part of the aforesaid property for a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of the order. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants, who were arrayed as respondents 6 & 8 to 10, in the Writ Petition, have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. 4. 3 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.A.No.53 of 2025 The contention of the appellants is that, the Order was passed without a notice to them and without an opportunity of hearing being given to them. 5. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge could not have intervene in the matter, on account of the fact that, the 1®* respondent was already before the Executing Court and could not have pursued parallel remedies. 6. Though the contention raised by the appellants may have been considered by us, the fact remains that the appellants are the recipients of the land, by virtue of Execution of Deeds in valuation of the Order of attachment. 7. In such circumstances, we do not deem it appropriate to intervene in the matter as any intervention would in some manner amount to permitting the violation of the Orders of the Court. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to 9. costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// P' % SECTION OFFiCER To, 1. One CC to Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC]_ 2. One CC to Sri N. Ravi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to GP for Stamps and Registration, High Court of A.P. a^ Amaravati[OUT] 4. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:03/03/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.53 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS