1. Thummala Rathnaiah v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, Direction or Writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Refusal Order Dt. 1010612024 passed by the respondent No.3 thereby refusing to register the sale deed Dl. 0410612024 vide P. No. 8912024 on the ground that the registered link document is a validated sale deed vide File No. EIA/AU1 10411997 Dt. 18/03/1997 in respect of the Plot No.32 admeasuring 500 SQ. Yds or 418 Sq. Mtrs in Sy. No. 432 situated at Pasumamula Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Pedda Amberpet Municipality, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to Order Ot. 1110112023 in W.P. No. 16310/201 9 and batch and belng violative of Art.14, 21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondent no.3 to receive and register the sale deed Dt. 0410612024 vide P. No. 90/2024 in accordance with law lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit. filed in support of the petition, ft'"-High court may be preased to direct the respondent no.3 to receive and regisier the lale deed Di. oq)oatzozq viie p. No._8912024 in respect of theprot No.3i admeasuring soo se. yds o,. +ia sq. r,rrto in Sy. No. 432.situated at pasumamura viilage, dbduilapurmet uanoat, FeJoa Amberpet Municipality. Ranga Reddy District accordance with taw, pending disposal of the above writ petition -in Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. V YADU KRISHNA SAINATH counsel for the Respondents: Gp FoR srAMps AND REGrsrRATroN The Court made the following: ORDER i I I SK, J W. t'.No.7665 of2025 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.7665 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard iearned counsel lor the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and perused the entire materia-l 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.1631O ol 2O.19 and batch dated 11.01.2023 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 u'rit petition. .) Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned coqnsel for the petitioners 4 The relevant portion of in W.P.No. 163 1O of 20 19 and batch dated 11.0I.2023 is as u ndcr: I3. The power of the rcgistering arrthorit) to re[use registration is only, rf any of the grounds or objections that arc enumerated under thc provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules 2025 SCC Onlrnc SC 740 v.--! 2 SI(, J W. P.Nc.7665 ot 2025 made thcreunder rn particular Scctions 19,20,21,22 A, 34, 35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are existing in respect of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated uncier [he provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorrties have no authority lo refuse registratidn of a documcnt on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which thc impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the lrnk document shown in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking into a validitl" of thc link document, the registering authority is rndrrecth. verifyrng whether thc executants oI the respective documenls arc havrng valid title or not to exccute the documents in question- As held in the above referred judgment in the case of Dr. Yadla Ramesl) Naidu (l supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go into the trtle of the partres 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 vcndor is not having a valid title over the property rvhich is the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such propcrty and merc registration of such document wrll not have an effect on the propert,v u,hich rs the subject matter of the said document. I4. As rightl-y conceded by the learned Government Pleadr:r lor Stamps and Registration, the registering authorities are not entitled 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 and such a ground is not available to the registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground.

19. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering authorities are not entitled to refuse rcgistration o[ a document on the ground that the link document re[erred to in the respective document is a validated document or to refuse regrslration of srrch document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner ancl Inspector General of Stamps and Registration_ Accordingly, thc 7 t SK, J W.P No 7665 ot 2O25 impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions arc set aside and Writ Petitions are allowed with a further dircction to thc respondent retistering authorities to rcceive the returned documents and to process the same subject to the condition of the said documents complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, l90g 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 bj, the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the exccutant has any title. Dven if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of whrch he has no titlc, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all ,the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty 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 o[ the Sub- Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the venclor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfred that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admtt execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated abovc, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the eflect of transferring.only thosc 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 transfer. , I

6. In view of the order in W.p.No. 163 l0 of 2019 .and batch dated 11.O1.2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of Refusal dated 1O.06.2024 4 SK, J W.P.No. /665 of 2025 passed by the respondent No.3 and the respondent authorities are directed to receive the returned documents and process th e same subject to the condition of the sard documents complying r.r'ith the provisions of the Registration, Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this rvrit petition, shall stand closed. /ffRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY EPUTY RE-Glsrpqn- SECTION OFFICER -/ The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department. Secretariat Buildings, At BRKR Bhavan. Hyderabad. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. The Sub-Registrar, Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District. The Commissioner and lnspector General, Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. V YADU KRISHNA SAINATH Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION 'High State of Telangana. [OUTI Court for the Two CD Copies To,

7. KKS BS 6 HIGH COURT DATED:1 010412025 ot 1HE li IA /4: c i_) 2 B Ai; lnir ( ORDER WP.No.7665 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C"rer'* %{*