1. Chee{tella Shivanage.swara Rao v. TJle State of.T_elangana

Petition under Section-lgl CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit. fired in support of the petition, n""nigh'cor.t may be preased to direct the respondent no.3 to receive and regisier tte "sare oe"o Dt. 04.06.2024 vide p. No' 9112024 in respect of the prot r'ro]gro uJr"usJring 500 sQ. vos o, +io sq. Mtrs in Sy. No. 52 situated ,1 pTrT.ur!!" Viff"g",iOArilapurmet Mandat, pedda Amberpet Municipality, Ranga Reddy Districi i"n accordance with law, pending disposal of the above writ petition Gounsel for the petitioner: SRl. V YADU KRISHNA SAINATH counsel for the Respondents: Gp FoR srAMps AND REGrsrRATloN The Court made the foltowing: ORDER 7 1 SK, J w.tr. No 7730 of 2O2s THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.773O of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel lor the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and 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.i63iO of 2Ol9 and batch dated ll.Ol.2023 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 1 Learned Government Pleadcr for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners 4 The relevant portion of in W.P.No.163 1O of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as un der: 13, The power of the rcgistering authoritt' to re[usc registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that arc enumerated unde the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8, and thc Rules I 2O25 SCC OnLine SC 740 2 sn.,i W I'N(,7710 ol .102- (- -\t made thereunder in particutar Sections lg,20,21,22_A, 34, .lS ar\d, rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, t9Og. are existing in respect of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are cnumerated under the provrsions of the Registration Act, 1909, the registering autharities have no authority to refuse registration of a document on any otirer ground. As already noted above, the ground on lr.,hich the impugned refusal orders in all these batch oi Writ petitiorrs are passed rs that thc link document shown in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking inro a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirectll. verifying whethcr thc executants of the respective documents are having valid title or not to execute the documents in question. As held in the above referred judgment in the case of Dr. yadla Ramesh Naidu (l supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go into the title of the parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendcc under a document !r,'ill not get a better title than his vcndor irnd in case if vcndor rs not having a valid title over the property whrch ii the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under thc said document does not gct any title over such propert]. and mere rcgistration of such document will not have an effect on the propert-y rvhich is the subJect matter of the said document. i4. As rightly conceded by the learned Government pleacler for Stamps and Registration, the registering authorities are not entitled to refuse registration ofa document on mere ground that the litle of the executants oI the respective document is based upon the validated document, though the same is compulsorily registerable document cannot be accepted and such a ground is not avarlable to the registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground.

19. In the light of Ihe above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondenI regtstering authorities are not entltled to refuse registration of a document on the ground that the link document referred to in the respective document is a validated documcnl or to refuse registration of such document by placing reliancc on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingl], the \ 3 SK, J w P. No.7730 of2025 impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and 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 complyrng with the provisions of the Regrstration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 5 In K. Gopi's case (supra 1 ), the Hon 'ble Supreme Court held as under; "The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to dccide whcther the executant has any title. Even i[ an €xecutant 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 atl the procedural comphances are made and the ncccssary stamp dut) as well 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 whether 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 executron thereof before him, subject to making procedural compiiances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration o[ a document have the effect of trahsferring only those rights, if any, that the-executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any tra n sfer. I I 6 In view of the order in W.P.No.1631O of 2019 and batch dated ll.OI .2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (supra I ) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of Refusal dated 1O.06.2024 \ --' 4 SIi, J W t' No 7730 ot 2025 pErssed by the respondent No.3 and the respondent autl-rorities are directed to receive the returned documents and 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, 1g99. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 Miscellaneous petitions, if arty pending in thrs r.vrit petition, shall stald closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY PUry REGISTRAR / SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Rec s;ei;;;[6r]iji,is., Xt BRKR Bhavan, Hyd"r"brdJitt"tion) Department' Telangana, Hyderabad

2. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District 3. The Sub-Registrar, pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District 4. The Commissioner and lnspector General, Registration and Stamps, 5. One CC to SRt. V YADU KRTSHNA SATNATH Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Gp FOR STAMPS AND REGTSTRATION ,High Courr for the 7. Two CD Cooies State of Tetangana. [OUTJ KKS BS s HIGH COURT DATED:10 10412025 ORDER WP.No.7730 of 2025 i ) ( { o o 1Ht s r ?B Ar, r,2, I t o- So,r+^uri I t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS _ ^ -^r8 (9Lq W.{