BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

FA Vijayawada

Between:

T. Tirapaiah, S/o. T. Apparao

Age: 57 years,

Joint Sub-Registrar-I

Stamps Registration Office

Gandhinagar

Vijaywada.                                                                                               

                                                                  K. Venakta Gowri Kumari

W/o. K. Ramana Rao

R/o. D. No.11-1-59

B.R.P. Road,

Vijayawada-500 001.                                                                                                

Counsel for the Appellant:                         

Counsel for the Respondent:

QUORUM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND SIX

ORAL ORDER: 

***

This an appeal preferred by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Stamps & Registration Office-I, Vijayawada against the order of the Dist. Forum in directing

The case of the complainant in brief is that   Vijayawada                 that only one transaction               

Though the Assistant Government Pleader filed memo of appearance did not file 

The complainant filed her affidavit evidence in support of her case and filed Exs. A1 to A5 viz., Encumbrance Certificates issued besides letter addressed to the appellant.     

Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.    about her thumb impression is unwarranted.    

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant went to the appellant   deed in favour of her tenant.            

When the complainant was suspecting the bonafides of the appellant office, he requested her to inspect,  Rule 127 reads as follows“Every application to a Registering Officer for an inspection, or search, or

a copy shall be made in writing.”

Rule 137 reads as follows:

(i)             

(ii)      

Since she requested for 

“When an application is made for a search for encumbrance   

There was a categorical mention  

Note: (1)    

(2)         

(a)                                      But, as the in the     

(b)                                     And, as in the present case, the applicant has made, the requisite search himself and as the acts and encumbrances discovered by him are shown in the certificate 

The Dist. Forum found that there was discrepancy between the Encumbrance Certificates issued one on 6.8.2004 and another on 13.8.2004.            The said particulars were given in Ex. A3, the subsequent Encumbrance Certificate.      

The government office would not give any reply to the letters, notices issued by the parties, equally, if the amounts were sent by Money Orders.                

We do not see any merits in the complaint filed by the complainant before the Dist. Forum. Equally the Dist. Forum did not 

In the result the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum in C.C. No. 104/2006

PRESIDENT                                      

*pnr

“CORRECTED – O.K.”