The High Court · 2025

450 Sft each respectively along with common area Situated in plot no- 148 along with undivided share of G1 Flat is 1B Sq.Yards or '15.05 Sq [\,4trs and G2 Flat is 18 Sq.Yards or 15.05 Sq.Mtrs out of total land admeasuring 233 Sq.Yards or 200 Sq.Mtrs. along with two wheeler parking, situated in Sy-No. 74112, ot Part of GLR No. 396., Sri Nilayam Apartment situated at Three Moorthy Weaker Sections Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, at East trrlarredpally, lt/ahendra Hills, Secunderabad, Telangana Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PARPULA SANDEEP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER -, I I I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR'.- Writ Petition No.5266 of 2O25 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: "to declare the in-action of Respondent No.3 Sub- Registrar, Maredpally, Seatnderabad, Hgderabad to receiue and register the sale deed presented bg the petitioner in respect of residential JTat beaing Nos.G7 and G2 in ground Jloor admeasuring 450 sq.ft., each respectiuelg along utith common area situated in plot No.14B along tuith undiuided share of Gl Jlat is 18 sq.yds., out of total admeasuing 233 sq.yds., along tuith trao utheeler parking situated at SA.No.74/ 12, Sn Nilagam Apartment situated at Tltree Moorthy Weaker Secfions Cooperatiue Housing Society Ltd., at East Mare dp allg, Mahendra H ills, Se cunderabad' Telang ana (subject proeprty)."

2. The facts of the case are that petitioner herein has purchased the subject property from Sri Maia Prem Kumar for a va-luable sale consideration and the vendor has executed a sale deed dated 23.O1.2025 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 i.e., Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad for the purpose of registering the sale deed to be executed by the vendor. However, respondent No.3 orally refused to register the same. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities are duty bound to receive, register and 2 release the subject document and in case of not registering, they shall assign reasons for refusal and pass orders accordingly. As such, it is prayed to direct the registering authority to register and release the subject document.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, which reads as under:- "32. Persons to present documents for registrdtion.-Except in the cases mentioned in I [section:; 31, BB and B9], euery document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shnll be presented at the prope r r e g i stratio n-offi-ce, - (a) bg some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copg of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or (b) bg the representatiue or assign of such a person. or (c) bg tlrc agent of such a persotT, representatiue or assign, dulq authori-z,ed bg potuer-of attorney executed. and autlrcnticated in manner hereinafter mentictned,. 34. Enquiry before registration bg registering ofJlcer.--(l) Subject to the prouisions cor-Ltainett in this Part and irt sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, ZZ, BB and 89, no docurnent shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatiues, asslgrns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registeing ofJicer tuithin the time allowed for presentation under secti<tns 23, 24, 25 and 26."

5. Leamed Assistant Government pleader further submitted that the procedure for seeking registration of a document is that the parties first and foremost have to execute the document by signing the document and by following the provision / I l contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908 and shall present the document before the registering authority. He would further submit that the parties have to pay registration charges, stamp duty and other incidental charges by way of challan and the estimated amount for the same will be available in IGRS website, wherein Stamp duty and registration charges will be calculated, enabling the parties to pay the challan. Thereafter, the parties shall approach the registering authority, enclosing the challan along with the relevant documents, which proves that the parties have approached ald made a proper presentation of document sough for registration' However, in the preset case the petitioners had not enclosed the copy of challan, and no application was Iiled as a proof that the petitioner had approached the respondent No'3'

6. L,earned Assistant Government Pleader has also placed on record the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad uide Circular Memo No.G3l9122l2024, dated I2.Oa.2024, which reads as under:- "Attention of the Sub-Registrars and Officers in the address entry is inuited- to the reference cited, luherein Hon'ble HighCourt, tuhile disposing the W.P No.16836/2O24 . and batch cases, dated: 09-07-2O24 issued common orders 11 u.rith certain guidelirtes to the Registration Authortties and instructions to concerned parties' { ln compliance tuith the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the follouing instructions are issued. i) Werteuer parties/ citizen approach to register the docunt.ents, the concerned Sub-Registrar, shall as expeditiouslg as possible preferablg within one ueek, either regist<'r the document or pass refusal order, tn terms of the Registration Act, 19O8 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and comntunicate the same to the concerned part.ies. In no case, the Su b-Registrars shall not refuse the documents orallg for registration, and it must be followed bg a written refusal orders. ii) In case documents are refused for reoistration, the Sub- Registrars shall inform the procedure for refund of Stamp Duty an-d registration charges to tLe concerned partie:;/ Citizens clearlg. The refunci shall be stictlg as per lndian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908. iii) Sult-Registrars shall maintain a watch. Register/ General Diarg (GD Book/ Entry Book/ Register) at euery Sub- Registrar Office and to make enties of the parties approachirtg the office on a particular date and time for the purpose for uhichtheg approached the oJfice, so as to auoid interference, tampering and misrepresentatiort. ln uietu of the aboue Sub-Registrars are hereby directed to maintain a Register in the follouing profonna. SL,TT o. Da n1.e I Cont I[o. Full Posta I SS Na Part a Purpo se of detail Remar Signat ure of partA All the Sub- Registrars shall inuariably maintain the register in the aboue proforma in th.eir o.ffice and shall be kept open to the uisiting public to tLLe office to record their purpose for the future reference. I I I 5 The Distict Registrars shall ensure that the aboue Registers are opened and maintained in the each Sub-Registrar Office on regular basis, iu) The registeing authorities shall follottt the guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagoplq Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and M/ s. Inuecta Tecltnologies Priuate Limited" Vs. Gouemment of Andhra Pradesh. Th.ese instructions shall be folloued scrupulously' If ang deuiation is found, suitable disciplinary action uill be initiated. These instructions taill not supersede the citizen charter prescibed for uaious seruices rendered by the department.' 7 . Learned. Assistant Government Pleader submits that in the circular dated 12.08.2024, the sub-registrars were directed to register/ refuse the documents presented before them, duly following the guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradeshl and M/s' Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradeshz and pass order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within one week from the date of receipt of the documents.

8. Strongly disputing the contentions of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners neither approached the respondent No.3 nor presented any document for registration. As such, the question ' 2ot6 (2) N-D 236 (FB) : 2015 scc online Hyd 407 / ' zozl 1tyN.i ztz 6 of refusal by the respondent does not arise, and therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondent to register the so called proposed sale deed.

9. H<:zrrd ar-rd perused the material available on record.

10. It is not out of the place to observe that this Court on many occasions observed that the petitioners in their writ affidavits are stating that the Sub-Registrars are orally refusing to register the documents. It is striking to note that the parties in order to en sure that the document presented for registration shall not be rejected/ refused for registration are filing writ petitions vvithout following procedure contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, and are trying to seek orders by misleading the Court. Many of such instances have come to the notice of this Court. 1 1 . Unrler those circumstance, it is relevant to refer the order dated 19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalia. The relevant paragraphs aIe extracted here under:- "8. The tuel.l exceptions, is estabLished Rule, subject to certain that the applicant for matdantus must t ross 1o;nLo raa 7 show bA euidence, that he made a demand calling upon the concerned authority to perform his public dutg and that was met uith refusal either byutords or bg conduct Apptying this salutary rule, the Apex Court in Sarastuati Industrial Sgndicate Ltd Etc., u.- Union of India, thus : "..... The powers of the High Court under Article 226 arc not strictly confined to the limits to tuhich proceedings for prerogatiue uits are subject in English practice. Neuertheless, the well-recognised rule that no u-trit or order in the nature of a mandamus tuould issue u-then there is no failure to perform a mandatory dutg applies in this country as utell. Duen in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied bg us, as it is in England, when a tarit of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we Jind it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition, Vol.13, P. 106): 'As a general rule the order u-till not be granted unless the party complained of has known u-that it was he u-tas required to do, so that he lud tLLe means of considering whether or not he should complg, and it must be shown by euidence that there LUas a distinct demand of that which the partg seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met bg a refusal". From the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is clear that the petitioners could not and did not show that theg made a demand to tlrc respondent and that was met uith refusal. Therefore, it is not possible to issue the declaration sought for or the consequential direction commanding the respondent herein to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed bg the petitioners in fauour of tLLeir purchasers. This uiew of mine gains full support from ttrc decision of a Diuision Bench of this Court in D. Ratnasu ndai Deui u. Commissioner of Urban Land Ceilinq, . I

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions fail and are accordinglg dismissed, but without costs. Howeuer, this order utill not preclude the petitioners from presenting the sale deeds for registration before the respondent. In such an euent, I am sure, tle respondent uttit immed.iatelg discharge his stotutory duties the Act and corusider mentioned registerabilttg of the sab deeds. I am also sure that in in Part Xo u case tlle registration is refused, he tuill certainlg record the rectsons as enjoined bg Section 71 of the Act and furnish a copA thereof, if the petitioners applg for the same."

12. It is also relevant to refer the brder passed by the Hon'ble S,rpreme Court in K.Jayaram and others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and otheri, the relevant paragraph s are extracted hereunder:- "l().lt is well-settled that the juisdiction exercised bg the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indio is extraordirtary, equitable and discretionary and it is irrtperatiue that the petitioner approaching the uit courT tnust come uith clean hands and put fonuard all facts before the Court Luithout concealing or suppressinq anAthing. A litigant is bound to state all facts tuhich are releuant to th-e litigatiort. If he witltholds some uital or releuant mateial in order to gain aduantage ouer the other side then he uould be guiltg of pla11inc1 fraud utith the court as utell as uith the oppositt, pttrties which cannot be countena nced.

11. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India t hrls held that a prerogatiue remedg is not auailable as o matter of course. In exercising extrao rdinary pouer, a writ court would ind.eed bear in mind the conduct of th.e partg uLhich is inuoking such.jrrisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses releuant materials or is othenuise guiltg of misleading the court, the court mag dismiss the action uithout adjudicating the matter. It utas held thus: u33. /t ls thus clear that ttaugh the appellant Compang had approached the High Court under,\rticle 226 of ttw Constitution, it had not candidly stated all tte facts to th.e Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary juisdi<:tiorl under Article 226 of tLe Constitution. Ouer o 1ZozZ7 lz Supremc Court Cases 815 I / I I 9 and aboue, a court of latt't is ctlso a cour-t of equitg. It is' therefore, of utmost necessity that when a partA approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before tLrc Court tttithout any reseruation. If there is suppression of mateial facts on the part of the applicant or ttaisted facts haue been placed befcre the Court, the writ court mag refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it tttithout enteing into merits of the matter."

12. In Udgami Eaam Khadi Gramodgog Welfare Sanstha and Another u, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others2, this Court has reiterated that the ulit remedy is an equitable one and a person approaching a supeior court must come uith a pair of clean hands. Such person should not suppress ang material fact but also should not take recollrse to legal proceedings ouer and ouer again tuhich amounts to abuse of the process of law.

13. InK.D. Sharma o, Steel Authorttg oJ India Limited and. Others 3, it utas held thus: "34. The juisdiction of the Supreme Court und.er Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of tle Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogatiue writs mentioned therein are issued for d.oing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessitg that the petitioner approaching the tuit court must come with clean handq put fonard all the facts before the court tuithout concealing or suppressing angthing and seek an appropriate relief- If there is no candid disclosure of releuant and mateial facts or the petitioner is guiltg of misleading the court, his petition mag be dismi-ssed at tLrc threshold witllout considering the merits of th.e claim' 35. The und.ertging obiect has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in th-e leading case of R. u' Kensington Income Tax Commissioner in the follott''ing words: ... it has been for mang gears tlrc rule of th-e court, and one uhich it is of tLe greatest importance to maintain, that tahen an applicant comes to tLe court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all tte material facts-it sags factsi,, not latu. He must not misstate tlrc lattt if he can ') l0 help it-the court is supposed to knou.t the laut. But it knou,s rtothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fullg and fairtg the facts: and tLte penatty bg tt-thich the court enforces that obligation is that'if it finds out that the facts ltaue not been fu\g and fairry stated to it, the court u.till set aside ang action uhich it has laken on the faith of the imperfect'statement." In

36. A prerogatiue remedg is not a tiatter of course. While exercising extraordinary potuer a turit court would certainlg bear in mind the conduct of the partg u.tho inuokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses mateial fact or attempts to mislead the court, tLre court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case bg stating, "We u,ill rnt listen to Aour application because of what gou haue done." The rule has been euolued in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abttsing the process of courl by deceiuing it. 37. Kenslngton Income Tax Commissioners.(supra), Viscount Reading, C.J. obserued: (KB pp. 495-96) o... Where an ex parte applicotiort has been made to this Court for ct rule nisi or otlutr process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidauit in support of the appticatioru utas not candici artd did not fairlg state the facts, but stated them ilr such a uaA as to mislead the Court as to the true J'acts, the Court ought, for its otun protection and to preuent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed ang further with the examination of the merits. This is a pouer inlterent in the Court, but one which should onLA be used in cases which bing conuiction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceiued. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examin.ation uLill be made ttf the facts as theg are and qs theA haue been statecl in the applicant's affidauit, and euerything will be heard that can be urged to inJluence the uiew ofthe Court uhen it reads the affi.dauit and knous the true facts. But if the result of this examination and h.earing is to leaue no doubt that the Court has been deceiued, then it utill refuse to hear angthing further from the applicant in a proceeding tahich has onlg been set in motiort by rneans of a misleading affidauit.',

38. The aboue pinciples haue bee.n accepted in our legal sgstem also. As per settled latu, the partg tttho inuokes the extraordinary juisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all mateial facts tuithout ang reseruation euen if they are again'st him. He cannot be alloued to plag 'hide and seek" or to .pick and" chaose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not ta dbclose (conceal) other facts. The uery basis of the wit juisdiction rests in d.isclosure of true and complete (correct) facts- If mateial facts are suppressed or distorted, the uery functioning of wit courts and exercise uould become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts hautng a bearing on the relief sought tt.tithout any qualification. ?his is because "tle court knows lanu brit not facts".

39. If the pimary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tox Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind' an applicant uho does not come tttith candid facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a uit of the court uith .soiled hands". Suppression or concealment of mateial ./acts is not an aduocacy. It is a jugglery' manipulation, manoeuuing or misrepresentation, tahich hc,s no place in equitable and prerogatiue juisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the mctteial facts fairlg and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent pouer in order to protect itself and to preuent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If tle court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court tuould be failing in its duty. Infact, such an applicant requires to be dealt utith for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court."

13. In the case on hand, the petitioners at paragraph No.3 of the writ affidavit stated the following:- "TfE petitioner Registrar, petitioner respectfullg submits that the herein approached respondent No.3, Sub- Boutenpallg, Secunderabad, Hgderabad I I 12 Distri,:t for the purpose of registeing the salet deed to be executed bg the uendor. HouJeuer, ttrc Sub-Registrar, Botue np allg Secunderab ad, Hg derab ad District refused to receiue and register tLrc sale deed presertted bg tLrc petitic'ner in respect of subject propertA......"

14. It is Pertinent to note that in the fresent case neither a refusal order was passed nor any reason was assigned in writing by the respondent No.3 denying registration and infact the draft sale deed filed in the material papers is unsigned. The learned counsel for the petitioners, who verified the pleadings of writ affidavit, had misrepresented the lacts and tried to secure an order.

15. In this connection, it is significant to refer the judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others 'x,herein at para I 1 observed as under: " 1 1. It is a settled proposition of lavv that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufhcient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. ln Bharat Singhv. State of Haryarua [AIR 1988 SC 2181] this Court has observed as under : 5 ArR 20to supRIt\4E couRT 2221 l3 "13. .,. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated' by facts, the party raising the point, i[ he is the writ oetitioner. must plead and prove such facts bv evidence which must apPear from the writ petition and if he is the from the counter- respondent, affid avit. If the facts are not Pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-aiiidavit. While in a pleading i.e. a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter- affidavit. not onlv th the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and ar-rnexed to it."

16. In my considered view, the aforesaid submission ol the iearned Assistant Government Pleader is well founded' I l4 Admittedl,r , the petitioners did not produce any documentar5r proof in support of their averment that they had executed and presented the sale deed for registration belore respondent No.3, and the sarne was refused for registration. 'The petitioners could not even rnentiol-i the date on which they had approached the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the statement cf the petitioners that thev had approached the respondent authority for registration, more so, when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent

17. ;\t this stage, it is relevant to refer thc order passed by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Vijay Syal V. State of Punjabo dated 22 .O5.2003 , the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:- "In order to sustain and maintain sanc'titg and solemnitg of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not ntctke false or knowinglg, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/ or sLrculd not conceal mateial facts t uith a design to gain some aduantage or benefit at the hands of the court, tuhen a court is considered as a place wlrcre truth and ju:;tice are thg solemru pursuits. If ang partg attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make rnisrepresentation and is concealing mateial facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such partg must be readg tct take consequences that follow on account of its own moking. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment bg cou,rts in deo-ling with such mc;tters are either ntistaken or lightlg taken instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take \ t 6 2003 Supp(l) S()r 242 I5 senous uieut in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice."

18. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any false statement in the petition is abuse of law and serious view has to be taken by Court. In the present case, the petitioners in order to suit their case and to secure an order have made misleading averments. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.

19. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners from presenting the subject document for registration before the registering authority, by duly following the due procedure as contemplated under law.

20. With the above observations, this writ petition 1S dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No costs. \ To, //TRUE COPY' SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU S TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. PARPULA SANDEEP KUMAR Ad vocate loPUCl 2 Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies

3. KKS GJP I HIGH COUFIT DATED:21 10212025 o {o \. \ ORDER WP.No.526€i of 2025 I I I I I ! I 'i|!a -\,.l:' \ 16JUfl M .', '' ',r r ,- r rF, { -' ./// DISMISSINCi THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (+ 4n I z5 @