1. Rakesh Mameni v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under section_151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit. fired in support of the petition, t u"Hign'corrt may be preased to direct the respondent no.3 to receiv_e ano regi.iei ir,e o""o Dr. 04.06.2024 vide p. No. 8812024 in respect of the proil.ro.:i aomeasriini soo sQ. yds or 418 Sq. Mtrs in Sy. No. 432,situated at pasumamuta vrilaje. n-uouilapurmet uuno"r, ijuoo, Amberpet Municipality, Ranga Reddy oistrici'in ac"cordance with law, pending disposal of the above writ petition -"rr" Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. V YADU KRISHNA SAINATH counsel for the Respondents: Gp FoR srAMps AND REGrsrRATroN Th6 Court made the following: ORDER I SX, J w.P.No 7590 of 2025 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.759O of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for 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 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and also the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrarl and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition. a Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned cotrnsel for the petitioners. 4 The relevant portion of in W.P.No.16310 of 2079 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as

13. The power oI the registering authority to refuse registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules t 2025 SCC Online SC 740 rt! 2 SK, J w.P.No 7590 of 2025 made thereunder in particular Sections 19,20,21,22-A, 34,35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 190g, are existing in respect of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1gog, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a document on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on whrch the impugned refusal orders in all these batch oI Writ petitions are passed is that the link document shonn 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 whether the executants of the respective documents are having valid titlc or not to execute the documents in question. As held in the above referred judgmcnt in the case o[ Dr. yadla Ramesh Naidu (1 supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go into the titte of the 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 which is the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document docs not get any title over srtch property and mere registration of such document will not have an eflect on the property which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightty conceded by the learned Government pleader for Stamps and Registration, the rcgistering authorities are not entifled to refuse registration oI 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 tight of the above, this Courl is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering authorities are not entitled to refuse registration of a document on the ground that the link document relerred to in the respective document is a validated document or to refuse registration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the 3 SK, J w.P.No 7590 ot2025 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 retumed documents and to process the same subject to the condition of the said documents complying with the provrsions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act. 1899. 5 In K. Gopi's CASC (supra 1), the Honble Supreme Court held as under; "The regrstering officer is not concerned with the titte 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 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 of the Sub- Registrar or ReBisterinB Authority to ascertain whether the yendor 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 belore hrm and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances 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. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in th.e property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer. ( ( 6 In view of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dateci 11.O1.2023 aIId a-lso the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's CASC (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 I r::I 4 SK, J W P.No.759O of 2025 I passed by the respondent No.3 and the respondent authorities 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, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 . Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY ro, //rRUE coPY// P=3T*EG|SrRAR -\ / i|\secrroNoFFtcER ^.

1. Ihe Principat Secretary, Bgy-"lr-q (Stamps anO nelstration) Department, Secretariat Buitdings, At B RKR Bhivan,'UyOeiaOad'

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, Telangana, Hyderabad

5. One CC to SRt. V YADU KRTSHNA SAINATH Advocate tOpUCl 6. Jwo CCs to GP FOR€TAMPS AND REGTSTRATTON ,High Court forthe State of Telanlana. [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies KKS BS 6 / .-. - a&. HIGH COURT DATED:10/0412025 ORDER WP.No.7590 of 2025 rina" *- ( o o 1 HE ll I4 /{ 2 B Apn 7nr ' .."-. .-n1)l' a ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS w"