The High Court · 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 impugned Refusal Order No. 8412023, dt. 14. 09. 2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER I I SK, J W.P.No.6l39 of2024 (l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.6139 of 2024 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Stamps a.rd Regist.ation and I I I perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 16310 of 2019 and batch dated ll.Ol.2o23 and also the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrarr and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition. 3 Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners have to submit the subject document before the respondents and if they submit the document, respondents have to consider the same subject to compliance of the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. t 2025 SCC OnLine SC 74O 2 SK, J tt'.P.No.6139 of2O24

4. The relevant portion of in W.P.No. l63to of 2079 and. batch dated tI.Ol.2O23 under: the order 15 aS

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections thai are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, l9og, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 19,20,2L,22,.A, i)4,35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Regisfation Act, tgog, are existing in respect of any such d.ocument presented for the regisbation. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 190g, the registering authoritics have no authority to refuse registration of a document on any othcr ground. As already noted above, tie ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ petitlons are passed is that the tink document shown in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirectly verifying v,'hether the executants of the respective documents are having v:rlid title or not to execute the documents in question. As held in the above referred judgment in the case of Dr. yadla Ramesh Naidu (1 s.pral, the registering authority is not entitred to go into the title of thc. parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendee under a document will not get a better title than his vendor and in case if vendor is not having a valid title over the property r.r,hich is the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such property and mere registration of such document will not have an effect on the property which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightly conceded by the learned Govemment pleader for stamps and Registration, the registering auttrorities are not enti ed to refuse registration of a document on mere ground that the title of the executants of the respective document is based upon the validated document, though the same is compulsorily registerable document cannot be accepted artd such a ground is not available to ./ 3 SK, J W.P.No.6l39 of 2024 t]le registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground.

19. In the light of the above, t.Ilis Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering authorities are not entitled to refuse regisbation of a document on the ground that the link document referred to in the respective documedt is a validated document or to refuse registration of such document by plac-ing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner arld Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective writ Petitions are set aside alrd Writ Petitions are allowed with a further direction to the respondent registering authorities to receive the returned documents and to process the same subject to the condition of the said documents complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 5 In K, Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon'lcle Supreme Court held as under; "The registering offrcer is not concerned with the title held by the executant- He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances ane made and the necessary stamp duty as rvell as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub- Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whethe-r the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution tlereof before him, subject to making procedural complialces as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. lf the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer. ) ) t I 4 S(, J W.P.No.6139 of 2024

6. In view of the order passed in W.p.No.l6310 of 2019 amd batch dated 11.01.2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopirs case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ petition is allowed directing the respondent authorities to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject plots without reference to the Letter C & IG Endt. No.CIG.Mail/AR/2008 dated 02.01.2008 and refusal order No.84 of 2023 dated I4.O9.2O23 issued by the respondent No.3 and subject to condition of the said documents complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 19Og and the Indian Stamp Act, 1g99. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 Miscellaneous petitions, il any pending in this writ -i petition, shalI stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SO/.T},G.VYJAYANTHI ASSIST,ANT REGISTRAR ST: CTION OFFICER \

1. The PrinciDal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department' Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad 2. fi;'iliri.i n"siidar' Medak ai Sanga iReddv District 3. The Joint Regislrar, RO (OB), Patancheru +. o"e CC to S"ri Karri Murbli Krishna Advocate tglpcl 6: i;; ddrL cp t", si";il fid' R;gLt,-ution,'Hign cburt for the State of 6. Two CD CoPies Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT] I To, TJ LS HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.6139 of 2024 1€'-4 C ^!. s v \ 'z'\ l! * o \=- t\ i!l ,\ .) :t-. u'.. )H ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 3 I