C.C No. 19/2008

Between:

D. Shekhar Rao

S/o. Late D. Krishna Rao

No. 45, SFS-407,

Yelahanka N.T.

Bangalore-560 064.                         ***                          Complainant

                                                          And

The Sub-Registrar

O/o. Dist. Registrar

Sanga Reddy

Medak District

Andhra Pradesh.                             ***                         Opposite Party                      

Counsel for the Complainant:                  P.I.P.

Counsel for the Opposite Party :              Govt. Pleader.

QUORUM:

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

                            SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
                                                &

                                SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER

FRIDAY, THIS THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)

***

This is a complaint filed u/s 17A of the Consumer Protection Act claiming compensation of Rs. 95 lakhs from the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy, complaining that incorrect  encumbrance certificates were given.  

The case of the complainant in brief is that he owns five acres of agricultural land in S.No. 856 which he got it from his father after his death in the year 1971.  It was mutated in his name in all the village records.  While so on  29.11.2005  one  Ms. G. Udaya Kumari colluding with her brother G. Gynaneshwar manipulated the documents  and influenced  the  opposite party the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy  and played fraud and got  the property registered  in her name, which was kept secret.    Later  Ms. Udaya Gouri sent a paltry amount of Rs. 1 lakh by way of demand draft through registered post on 7.1.2006 which was returned.   On that he became suspicious sent a letter to the opposite party  cautioning  him of any malafide transaction.  He applied for encumbrance certificate (E.C.).   The opposite party issued computer generated ‘Nil’ E.C.  on 12.1.2006.  Again he requested  for another E.C.  Again a  computer generated ‘Nil’ E.C. was issued on 14.3.2006.  He approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru to issue Pahani certificate  wherein he was informed that a sale deed was registered.  On that he  applied for a fresh E.C. on 25.5.2006  detailing the registered sale deed earlier mentioned in favour of  Ms. Udaya Gouri and on that the opposite party while giving E.C. noted the above sale deed.   He found  that registration was illegally made without a valid GPA.  No photograph of the vendor was affixed.  It is an act of forgery.   The opposite party thus issued two erroneous E.Cs  consequently  his rights were affected.   Had the correct certificates been issued he would have taken action and see  that mutation of property in favour of  Ms. Udaya Gouri was not made in the records.  The E.Cs issued to him are in violation of the  Registration Act and the rules framed there under.  He is  a post graduate  in Commerce and Microsoft certificate consultant working in Singapore. Due to this, and in order to save his property  he was forced to leave the job.  Since he had sustained loss due to the acts of opposite party, he claimed compensation of Rs. 95 lakhs towards damages etc.

The Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy (opposite party) resisted the case.   Since the allegation of forgery, fraud etc. were made again him, the   Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.   When the complainant and another have  applied for E.Cs. they  did not furnish  any particulars of the property, transactions  or the classification except the survey numbers.   The computer system as it exists  in the absence of  full particulars  in the application for search does not give full particulars in the E.C.  As such, the ECs that were issued do not reflect the particulars of registration.   Since in the application Dt. 25.5.2006  he has given the document number, the E.C. was given containing the particulars of registration.   Had the complainant furnished the very same particulars which he had  furnished on 25.5.2006 he  would have given the particulars of  property that was  registered in favour of  Ms. Udaya Gouri.   The complainant could have undertaken the  search by himself as provided u/s 57 and Rule 137(1)  of the Registration Act and Rules framed thereunder.   He could have found the transaction which he intended to impugn.   The department, on any account, would  not be held responsible for any errors crept in the said certificate.  The defects  in the E.C. if any brought to the notice of the department, they will be rectified free of cost  after due verification.  Provisions/Rules are noted on the reverse of E.C.  When the complainant did not furnish the particulars, he cannot turn round,  and complain that the opposite party had suppressed.  The motive of the complainant is malicious.   There is no deficiency in service on their  part.   The compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. The complaint is barred by limitation.    Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and Exs. A1 to 26.   Refuting his evidence  the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy filed his affidavit evidence and   Exs. B1 to B6.

The points that arise for consideration  is :

1)     Whether the Sub-Registrar (O.P) was guilty of furnishing false E.Cs?

2)     Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?

3)     If so, to what relief?

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had filed Ex. B1 application for general search pertaining to five acres of property situated at S.No. 856  of Rudram Village, Patancheru Mandal on 12.1.2006.  Pursuant to which  a computer generated ‘Nil’ E.C. was  issued evidenced under Ex. B4 Dt. 12.1.2006.  He got another application  through  Sri  P. Sunil Kumar,  an advocate evidenced under Ex. B2. Dt. 14.3.2006 for the self same property.   The Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy  issued computer generated ‘Nil’ E.C.  vide Ex. B5 Dt. 14.3.2006.    The complainant  again filed an application for issuance of E.C.  under Ex. B3 Dt. 25.5.2006 for general search pertaining to document No. 17481/2005 Dt. 29.11.2005.  The opposite party  issued Ex. B6  computer generated E.C. mentioning  that a registered sale deed was executed  on 29.11.2005 in favour of Ms. Udaya Gouri by Sri Shekar Rao.   

The complainant alleges that  in view of erroneous Ex. B4 & B5 E.Cs  he could not take timely action for  stopping mutation in the name of  Smt.  Udaya Gouri in the village records.  Obviously, in order to prove that  opposite party has given such certificate in collusion with  Smt.  Udaya Gouri,  he also relied the endorsement  by registering authority validating the GPA (long subsequent to the period of limitation.)  in favour of Mr. G. Gyaneswara Rao, which he had cancelled. He alleged that the photograph of the vendor was not affixed.    The sale deed was executed/registered  violating  the following  rules.   

(1)   illegal validation of  GPA by violating Sections  41 & 42 of the Stamp Act.    (2)  non-validity of his own GPA  on the ground that stamp papers were purchased at Bangalore and non-registration thereof, and subsequent cancellation.  (3) non-implementation of  Section 32A of the Registration Act  by the registering authority.  (4) sending of D.D. for Rs. 1 lakh by the vendor  (6) not taking cognizance of provisions of Section 47 & 49 of A.P. Land Tenancy Act while registering the sale deed.  (7) violation of  Section 47 of FEMA regulations.  (8) Giving sub-division No. 856P contrary to the village record.  (9) registering the land at far less price than the market value fixed by the government etc.  

He further contended that  the registering authority   obviously created a survey No. 856/P.  There was no classification as such.   While issuing E.C. to the complainant  both the Survey Nos. 856 & 856/P together were mentioned.  This sub-division  was  inserted in order to see that E.C. sought for is not  issued.   As on 5.8.2005  survey No. 856/P did not exist.  For the first time  it finds place  in the E.C. Dt. 1.12.2005.  This  was a manipulation.  Basing on which illegal transfer of khatha  was made by the revenue authorities.  This is done by virtue of  incorrect E.Cs that was given by the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy. He alleges that had a correct and true E.C Dt. 12.1.2006 and 14.3.2006  were issued he could have blocked the transfer of his property that took place  on  19.5.2006.  It could have saved  him from agony. 

Evidently, when he applied for  E.C under Exs. B1  he  did not mention the boundaries  as mentioned in the sale deed.   Only when he mentioned  the particulars of the sale deed the  opposite party has furnished,  Ex. B6 E.C.   Immediately he filed a suit O.S. No. 346/2006 before Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy  impugning the sale deed  and consequent corrections  in the revenue records and for permanent injunction restraining from interfering with the property.   It is curious to note that despite the fact that he could know that correct E.C. was not furnished on his application under Exs. B1 & B2 he did not implead the opposite party  in the suit alleging fraud and collusion etc.  When he contends that by virtue of non-furnishing of E.C. he could not effectively question the transfer of these entries in the village records,   and more so when the suit is  for rectification of entries in the village records,  he could have made mention about the incorrect issuance of  E.Cs. On the same facts he claimed compensation impugning fraud etc. without any proof.  It is settled law that  if the facts of two cases,  one pending in a  Civil Court  and the other before the Consumer Forum/Commission are specifically the same, the Consumer Forum or the Commission will not exercise their jurisdiction  on the ground that the matter is subjudice  before the ordinary Court.    In the case on hand, it was the complainant  who had filed a civil suit before the Civil Court on the same subject matter and on the same cause of action, before filing  the complaint before the State Commission.  In these circumstances, parallel proceedings before the Civil Court  and the State Commission could not go on.    

It is an admitted fact that the complainant  had executed an unregistered GPA  in favour of one G. Gyaneshwar Rao, who in turn  executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Ms. Udaya Gouri.   He also kept original title deed with the GPA.  The complainant alleges that he cancelled the said GPA  and the said fact was intimated by  post to G. Gyaneswara Rao  on 8.11.2005.  The fact of  cancellation of GPA was not known to the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy. No notice was issued to him nor there is any evidence to that effect.   In the plaint  in O.S. No. 346/2006 there is no whisper that the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy  has acted willfully or maliciously and conspired with the defendants  and created all these documents.   If really he was of the opinion that the Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy was  hand in glove with defendants, he would have impleaded him as  a  party.   At least,  there should have been some averment in the plaint.  For the first  time,  more than two years there after,  he came up with this complaint alleging that erroneous E.Cs were issued  to him and therefore he sustained a whopping  loss to a tune of Rs. 95 lakhs.   He could not spell as to how he is entitled to such an amount.  

In view of the fact that  already a suit was filed where these questions would be resolved, we do not intend to go into the question as to the validity or otherwise of the sale deed executed by his  GPA  in favour of Ms. Udaya Gouri as it is beyond the scope and purview of this Commission.

Undisputedly, as already mentioned  the complainant had made three applications  for providing E.Cs  pertaining to his property.   When the earlier two applications  Dt. 12.1.2006 and 12.3.2006 were filed  Exs. B4 & B5  Nil ECs were issued.   In Ex. B6 E.C. Dt. 25.5.2006 the impugned sale deed was mentioned.  The complainant alleges that  first two  E.Cs were  erroneous and was given deliberately  in order to keep him in cloud.   

The  Sub-Registrar in order to defend himself  filed the applications  submitted by the very complainant and his advocate Sri P. Sunil Kumar  under Exs. B1 & B2.  In Ex. B1 he kept various coloumns ‘blank’ pertaining to the document number,  particulars as to the property etc.  In  second application Ex. B2 filed by  Sri P. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, he equally kept the above coloumns blank.  There is no reason why they  kept  various coloumns  blank. We may state herein that the E.Cs given were computer generated.  Since these  coloumns were kept blank, the particulars were not generated and accordingly ‘Nil’ certificates were given.   When the complainant by application  Ex. B3 mentioned all the particulars including the document number, the Sub-Registrar has issued Ex. B6 E.C. mentioning the transaction entered by his GPA  in favour of Ms. Udaya Gouri.   

We may state herein that  even before questioning  these ECs he has already filed a suit,  questioning validity of  the sale deed.   Therefore, we do not see any ground whatsoever  to state that the complainant had sustained some loss in not knowing particulars of the documents.  Taking cue from the fact that mutation was taken place,  just before the application under Ex. B1, he now alleges that  he could not prevent  mutation, in view of the fact that it was not reflected in the ECs.  Obviously, he has forgotten  the fact that he had already filed  the suit for correction of entries in the revenue records.  Therefore, we do not see any loss that could be sustained by the complainant in view of  ‘NIL’  ECs issued under Exs. B4 & B5.

We may  mention herein that he also filed criminal complaints against Sri G. Gyaneshwara Rao and Ms. Udaya Gouri  u/s 120(B), 177, 409, 420, 468, 471 and Sec. 13 of FEMA evidenced under  Ex. A25 copy of FIR.  The FIR was registered on  6.10.2007.   He did not append the copy of the complaint basing on which the complaint was registered.   We do not know whether  any allegation of conspiracy with the  Sub-Registrar  was made a mention.  The opposite party was not arrayed as an accused. 

The complainant also contended that  a registered sale deed was executed  by Ms. Udaya Gouri in favour of  one B. Padmaja, an NRI  on 11.12.2006  violating  FEMA regulations.   Since all these questions  have no bearing on the present dispute, we do not intend to go into those questions.  They would be adjudicated by the Civil Court, which the complainant had already clutched.  Equally in the criminal case   filed by him  the question of  fraud, forgery etc. would be gone into.   This Commission would not resolve  those disputes which are not in its purview.   

The complainant undoubtedly filed this complaint belatedly, two years after issuance of ECs  taking inspiration from an order of the National Commission in R.P. No. 1444/2004  in between  the Joint Sub-Registrar, Palani  and TMT Maragatham.  The National Commission in its order  opined that  issuing erroneous  E.C. seriously prejudice the rights of the parties and it would amount to deficiency in service, and the concerned Sub-Registrar would be liable for deficiency in service  and could be brought under the Consumer Protection Act.

 Earlier the  Supreme Court  in  S.P. Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi  reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 839 after considering the provisions of  Registration Act and Stamps Act and  the rules framed  there under had categorically held  that the officers appointed  under Registration Act and Stamp Act  do not render any service within the meaning of  Consumer Protection Act.  They only perform their statutory duties which are  at least quasi-judicial in nature to raise and collect the  State revenue which is a part of the sovereign  power of the State.    By relying section 86  of the Registration Act their Lordships’  opined that  Registering Officer is  not liable for thing  bonafide done or refused in his official capacity.  No registering officer shall be liable to any suit, claim or demand by reason of  any thing in good faith done  or refused in his official capacity. It was held:

“ Running through the twin Acts, namely, the Registration Act and the Stamp Act, we could not, at any stage, reconcile ourselves to the idea espoused by the appellants counsel, that there is an element of commercialism involved in the whole process of registration of instruments or payment of Stamp Duty and that the executant of an instrument, at the time of its presentation for registration, becomes a consumer entitled to service within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The reasons are many.

The Registration Act, as also the Stamp Act, are meant primarily to augment the State revenue by prescribing the stamp duty on various categories of instruments or documents and the procedure for collection of stamp duty through distress or other means including criminal prosecution as non-payment of stamp duty has been constituted as an offence. Payment of registration fee or registration charges including charges for issuing certified copies of the registered documents or fee for the inspection of various registers or documents kept in the Registrars or Sub-Registrars office etc. constitute another component of State revenue.

In this situation, therefore, the person who presents a document for registration and pays the stamp duty on it or the registration fee, does not become a consumer nor do the officers appointed to implement the provisions of the two Acts render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. They only perform their statutory duties (some of which, as earlier indicated, are judicial or, at least, quasi-judicial in nature) to raise and collect the State revenue which is a part of the sovereign power of the State.

 Their Lordships’  referred to its earlier decision in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 and observed that Government officers may be held liable in tort if, in the discharge of  official administrative duties, act maliciously or with oblique motive or mala fide.

          Since in that case neither the  appellant pleaded nor the Fora recorded any finding that the refusal of the registering officer  or the inaction of the officers  was malicious, motivated or mala fide, the complaint was dismissed.   

The  National Commission distinguished  the said  judgment, by relying Rules  137 to  139 and opined that if E.C. is sought for, the same is to be provided under Rules 142 and 143.   In the light of the above provisions, and relying the decision of  Apex Court in  Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta (1994) I SCC 243   it held that for deficiency in service  in case of statutory duty,  proceedings for  damages under  tort is maintainable against statutory authority.   

Having gone through the said decision, we are of the opinion that  the National Commission  has no occasion to  consider the rules for issuing computerized ECs and  Andhra Pradesh Rules framed under Registration Act.  The decision arose under different state rules.

Section 57 of the Registration Act which is relevant reads as follows :

57. Registering officers to allow inspection of certain books and indexes, and to give certified copies of entries

(1) Subject to the previous payment of the fees payable in that behalf, the Book Nos. 1 and 2 and the Indexes relating to Book No. 1 shall be at all times open to inspection by any person applying to inspect the same; and, subject to the provisions of section 62, copies of entries in such books shall be given to all persons applying for such copies.

(2) Subject to the same provisions, copies of entries in Book No.3 and in the Index relating thereto shall be given to the persons executing the documents to which such entries relate, or to their agents, and after the death of the executants (but not before) to any person applying for such copies.

(3) Subject to the same provisions, copies of entries in Book No.4 and in the Index relating thereto shall be given to any person executing or claiming under the documents to which such entries respectively refer, or to his agent or representative.

(4) The requisite search under the section for entries in Book Nos. 3 and 4 shall be made only by the registering officer.

(5) All copies given under this section shall be signed and sealed by the registering officer, and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents.

(B) As to the procedure on admitting to registration

Rule 137 of A.P. Rules under the Registration Act pertains to ‘search’ which reads as follows :

Rule 137:

(i)       When an application for a search is presented and the requisite fees have been paid, the Registering Officer shall enquire whether the applicant will himself make the search or desires that it should be made by the office  establishment.  When a clerk is deputed to make  or verify  the search, the name of the clerk deputed shall be noted on the application.  As soon as the search and  verification are completed, the result, or a reference to the certificates of encumbrance  showing the result shall be noted on the application by the person  who made the search and signed by the person who made and verified the search.

(ii)      Whenever an entry found  on search is read out to an applicant under Rule 133, a note shall be made on the application to the effect that has been done and, when the applicant does not require a copy of such entry, this fact shall also be noted on the application and the signature of the applicant obtained thereto.

Admittedly this facility has not been availed by the complainant.

Rule 140 pertains to ‘Encumbrance Certificate’ which reads as follows :

“When an application is made for a search for encumbrance  in respect of any immovable property or for a list  of documents executed by, or in favour of a single individual, and the applicant desires that a certificate of encumbrance or a list of documents found in the course of such search should be furnished  to him by the Registering Officer, the request shall be complied with, the certificate  or list being in the form printed in Appendix-VII.

There was a categorical mention  under note  in Appendix-VII (Rule 140 and 141) Certificate of Encumbrance on property which reads as follows :

Note: (1)  The acts and encumbrances shown in the certificate are those discovered with reference to the description  of properties furnished  by the Applicant.  If the same properties have been described in registered documents in a manner different from the way in which the applicant has described them, transactions evidenced by such documents will not be included in the Certificate.

(2)      Under Section 57 of the Registration  Act  and Rule 137(i), persons desiring to inspect entries in the registers and indices, or requiring copies thereof  or requiring certificates of  encumbrances on specified properties  should make the search themselves, when the registers and indices will be placed before them on payment of the prescribed fees.

(a)                                       But, as the in the  present case, the applicant has not undertaken the search himself, the requisite search has been made as carefully as possible  by the office, but the Department  will not,  on any account, hold itself responsible for any errors in the results of the search embodied  in the certificate.

(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  after verification the Department will not on any account, hold itself responsible for the omissions in it of any other acts and encumbrances affecting the said properties not discovered by the Appellant.  (emphasis ours)

Thus the  Registration Act  as well as rules make abundantly clear that the registering authority will  not responsible for the mistakes crept in.  The applicants are given an opportunity to verify the very register.  Without availing  opportunity, he cannot turn round and complain that E.C. was given without  proper search.  These rules were framed in 1959.  Now  particulars were computerized obviously by virtue of amendment, by inserting  Section 16(A) to the main Act  (Act 48 of 2001 Dt. 28.4.2001).   Since the complainant intended that he needed the computer version of  ECs  and he  did not fill up all the necessary particulars  in the application, the same was reflected  in the E.Cs that were given to him.   

          The complainant himself had taken print out from the IGRS  website which reads as follows :

It is not known whether  the complainant had attempted the search  on this website to know as to the particulars  in the E.C.  On the other hand  he  applied  personally and also through an  advocate to furnish E.Cs by  filing applications which we have already mentioned.  The  Joint Sub-Registrar explained as to why the full particulars did not come in the E.C.  He stated in his affidavit evidence that  “in all the three applications for issuance of E.Cs were submitted in our office.  The complainant D. Shekhar Rao  filed the first application on  11.01.2006.   In  the  application  filed  by   Shekhar  Rao   the

complainant did not give the full particulars  of the property  and left blank the coloumns relating to the “owner of the property”.  He also did not give the Document  No.   As, no details  were  given in  the application a ‘Nil’  certificate

generated by the computer and the same was issued on 12^th January, 2006.  A second application  was filed by one P. Sunil Kumar, advocate this application also did not give the name of the owner of the property and the Document No.  Hence, in view of the non-supply of the full particulars  a ‘Nil’ certificate was issued for the search period of 1.1.1983 to 13.3.2006.  The complainant filed another application on 25^th May, 2006.  In this application he has mentioned the Document No. 17481/05 Dated 29.11.2005.  As he has given the Document No. the computer generated details of the Encumbrance  on the property  and the same was issued to the complainant.”

He further alleges that  “the E.C. on property is issued under Rule 140 & 141 of the A.P. Rules under Registration Act, 1908.  These Rules state under the heading “Note: that the Department would not on any account hold themselves responsible for any errors in the result of the search embodied in the certificate.   Hence, the Department cannot be held responsible for the Nil certificate issued to the complainant.”

The complainant contended that he having noted S.No. 856  correctly, the opposite party sub-classified it as S.No. 856p in order to suppress the transaction. His contention is that in the original application survey number   was  correctly mentioned.   The opposite party on the other hand asserts that complainant owns a part of the extent of land situated in S.No. 856 which consists of more than 5 acres,  and it is an assigned land, and as such it  was noted as S.No. 856P denoting part of the land.   

The complainant having obtained information by filing application under Right to Information Act, ought to have find out as to how the data noted in  ECs were prepared  and by whom.  Whether the  Sub-Registrar  has any play in noting the details mentioned in ECs.  Could he alter the data processed?

At the same time we find that  giving a ‘nil’  EC  sends wrong signals.   If  all  particulars  are not  furnished  so as to generate full particulars of EC, it should say that the application is rejected  for want of full particulars.   At any rate it cannot generate a certificate stating  ‘Nil’.  This classification is patently wrong.  The concerned officials should take note of  this and correct the entries accordingly.   More so when the rules say that if  survey number   is noted along   with  the  name  or  the  village,  the   particulars   will   be   generated. 

This case demonstrate that all is not well, with computer generated ECs.   Undoubtedly this will lead to unnecessary litigations and complications.   The computer should be able to give the particulars even if one of the coloumns is filled  up,  since the rules framed enjoin  the same.  Lest there is no meaning for applying E.C. when the applicant knows all  the transactions.  The question of noting the date of alienation will not  arise.  The contention of the Sub-Registrar in this regard  is unsustainable.   The reason for refusing to compensate  in this case is  non-proof of malice or motive on his  part  in generating  ECs as noted in the software.   The complainant could not prove that there is any tampering of  software embedded in the system by the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, he cannot be imputed with any motive or malice.   Importantly there is no reason why  he did not search for the records personally when rules authorize him.  He could have invoked Rule 140 mentioned above and search by himself.  This facility is given in order to see that the applicants  do not suffer loss due to mistake if any in searching  by the  authorities.  They are aware  of the importance.  The reason for their non-liability in case of mistakes is also specifically noted.   Obviously  this is inherent  in  case of searches.   Since the complainant could not prove any malice or motive on the part of opposite party in issuing Exs. B4 & B5, without mentioning the alienation made by his GPA and in the light of the fact that suit as well as criminal case are pending  and admittedly where the opposite party was not made a party, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service  on the part of opposite party. 

Learned  Government Pleader contended that  the complainant  filed Ex. B1 application on 12.1.2006.   One  Sri  P. Sunil Kumar, an advocate filed second application on 12.3.2006.   The complainant could not show  as to how he was concerned with the application filed by Sri P. Sunil Kumar. The complainant obviously, intends to take advantage of second application  filed by  Sri P. Sunil Kumar Dt. 12.3.2006  and filed the complaint on 23.2.2008, only to save limitation.  When he filed Ex. B1 on 12.1.2006 and could know that the E.C. issued  was incorrect, he ought to have filed the complaint on or

before 12.1.2008.  Since the complaint was filed two years thereafter  barred by limitation.   We may state  herein that the complainant had received the encumbrance certificate under Ex. B6  on 25.5.2006, from which he could know that the first E.C was given with incorrect particulars,  we are of the opinion that it is within time.  On that score the complaint cannot be dismissed.

Having gone through the entire record, and having found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in issuing  Exs. B4 & B5 E.Cs, we are of the opinion that the complainant was not entitled to any compensation.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. However, no costs.

PRESIDENT                  LADY MEMBER            MALE MEMBER

                                      Dt. 03. 10. 2008.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANT                                                     OPPOSITE PARTY

None                                                                     None

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex. A1;        --                 Copies of  title pass book and pahani

Ex. A2;   07.11.2005      Copy of cancellation of GPA Dt. 9.7.2004.

Ex. A3;   08.11.2005      Letter of complainant to G. Gyaneswara Rao

Ex. A4;        --                 Copy of GPA with  schedule property.

Ex. A5;        --                 Extract of Section 43 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899.

Ex. A6;   29.11.2005      Copy of Sale Deed.

Ex. A7;   16.02.2008      Letter of Dist. Registrar to complainant

Ex. A8;   26.09.2002      Letter of  Asst. Public Information Officer, O/o.

                                      Commissioner & I.G. of Registration & Stamps.

Ex. A9;   07.11.2002      Memo on Amendment of Section 32A issued by

                                      IG of  Registration & Stamps, A.P.

Ex. A10;      --                 Extract of Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Ex. A11;      --                 Extract of Section 45 to 49 of the Tenancy Laws in

                                      Andhra Pradesh.

Ex. A12;  20.01.2006     Letter of complainant to O.P.

Ex. A13;  28.11.2005     Xerox copy of D.D. for Rs. 1 lakh in favour of

Complainant

Ex. A14;  30.06.2006     Public Notice issued  in Eenadu Telugu daily.

Ex. A15;  11.12.2006     Sale Deed executed by Smt. G. Udaya Gouri in favour

                                      Of  Ms. B. Padmaja.

Ex. A16;  04.09.2007     Letter of Chief Public Information Officer, RBI

addressed to complainant.

Ex. A17;  22.05.2006     Application of complainant filed before MRO,

Patancheru, Medak Dist.

Ex. A18;  01.12.2005     E.C. on property issued by  O.P.

Ex. A19;  12.01.2006     E.C.  on property issued by O.P.

     14.03.2006      E.C. on property issued by O.P.

     25.05.2006      E.C. on property issued by O.P.

Ex. A20;      --                 Copies of applications filed for E.C.

Ex. A21;      --                 IGRS Department’s CARD Web  Services Division

                                      Home page.

Ex. A22; 12.03.2008      Particulars of property extracted through Internet.

Ex. A23;  18.06.2008     Copy of counter affidavit filed by Joint Sub-Registrar

                                      Sanga Reddy.

Ex. A24;  June, 2006     Copy of  plaint in O.S. No. 346/2006, Prl. JCJ,

                                      Sanga Reddy.

Ex. A25;  06.10.2007     Copy of F.I.R. No. 396, P.S. Patanceru

Ex. A26;  25.07.2008     e-Mail addressed to complainant.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex. B1; 12.01.2006 ;  Application filed by  complainant for E.C.

Ex. B2; 14.03.2006;   Application filed by P. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for E.C.

Ex. B3; 25.05.2006;   Application filed by complainant for E.C.

Ex. B4; 12.01.2006;   E.C. issued by O.P for Ex. B1 application

Ex. B5; 14.03.2006;   E.C. issued by O.P for Ex. B2 application

Ex. B6; 25.05.2006;   E.C. issued by O.P for Ex. B3 application.

PRESIDENT                  LADY MEMBER            MALE MEMBER

                                      Dt. 03. 10. 2008.