Smt. Yerra Maneela 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 appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in lhe nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned order of Refusal of the pending Document No' P 45/2023 vide Lr.No. Ref.No. 27ISRO IGKN2O23 dt. 30-12-2023, as being illegal, arbitrary' unjust and unconstitu tional and consequently set aside the same, set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 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 order of the Refusal of the pending Document No. P 4512023 vide Lr.No. Ref No. 27lSRo rcKRt2oz3 dt. 30-12-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent and to register and release the document kept as p.No. 4612023, pending disposal of the main Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SARDAR JASBEER SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER I i I i i ! I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.ll22 7 of 2025 oRDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitiongr and learned GovernmentPleaderforStampsandRegistrationforthe respondents and perused the entire material on record' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2. issue invoived in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W'P'No'1631O of 20 19 and batch dated ll.Ol.2O2g and also the recent Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K' Gopi Vs The Sub- Registrarl and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps 3. and Registration has not ctisputed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner' The relevant portion of the order in W'P'No'16310 of

4. 2Ol9 and. batch dated lt 'Ol'2023 is as under:

13. The porver of the registering authority to refuse registration rs only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerate@ under the provisions of the Registration Act' 19O8' and the Rules made thereuncler in particular Sections lg' 20' 2l' 22 A' 34' 35 and rule i2025 SCC OnLinc SC 740 2 SK, J, W.P.No.ll227 of 2O2i 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registratjon Act, lgog, are existing in respect of an1. such document pr-esented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Rcgistration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authoritv to refuse registration of a document on any other ground. As alreadY 0oted above, the ground on whlch the impugned rcfusal orders in all these batch of Writ petitions are passed is that the link document shorvn in the respcctive documents is a validated and an unregistcred document. Bv looking into a validity ot the link documcnt, the registering au lority is lndirectly verifving whether the execulants of the respective documents are having valid title or not to exocute thc documents in question. As held in the above referred ludgrnent in the case of Dr. yadla llamesll Naidu (l supra), the registering authority is not eDtitled to go Lnto the title of the partres to the document. lt is a settled iau, that rc vendee under a document (,ill noL get a bctter.title than his venclor.and in case if lendor is not having a valid titlc over thc propert-\, rthicl] is the subJect matter of a particular document, thc vendee under the said documcnt does not get a[y titlc ovcr such property and mere registration of such document r.vrll not have an effect on the property which is the subject matter o[ the sard document.

14. As rightly concecled br LIre loarned Governlncnt pleader for StamPs and Registration, the re,gistering authorities arc r)ot entr ed to refusc registratjon of a clocLurlent on mere ground that thc title ot the executants oI the respeclive document is based upon the validated document, though the same is compulsorily registerable document cannot be accepte(l and such a ground is not available to the regislering authorities to refuse registration oi. 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 .-.titled to refuse registration of a document on thc ground that the link document referred to in the rcspective doc,ment is a varidated document or to refuse rcgistration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02-01.200g. issued by the Commissioner and Inspector Gener-al of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective Writ petitions al.e set aside and : : I It I ww' 'ix*:1 :l SK, J W P.No.1 1227 of 2025 Writ Petitions are allowecl with a further direction to the respondent registering authoritics 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' 19O8 and the Indian StamP Act, 1899

5. In K. Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Sr'-Lpreme Court held as under: "The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by theexecutant'Hehasnoadjudicatorypowertodecidewhetherthe cxecutant has any title Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a lancl in respect of u'hich he has no tltle' the registering ofhcer 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 paicl- 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 rvhich he is seeking to transfer' Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him ancl the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making proceclural compliances as narrated above' thedocumentmustberegistered'l.heexecutionandregistrationofa 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

6. ln view of the order passed in W'P'No 163 1O of 2019 and batchdatedll.0l.2023andalsotheJudgmentoftheHon,]rle Supreme Court in K' Gopi's case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of Refusal dated 30 '12 '2023 \ ( 4 SI(, W P.No.11227 of 2O2 J-. 5. passed by the respondent No.4 and the respondent authorities are directed to receive the returned documents ald process the same sub.lect 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. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTAM REGISTRAR ra&- SECTtoN OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner and Inspector General (Registration and Stamps), Hvderabad. District

3. Tlie District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Medchal Malkajglr! Diskict. 4. The Sub-Regisfrar, Registration and Stamps Ghatkesar, Medchal Malkajgiri

5. One CC to Sri Sardar Jasbeer Singh, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Stamps and Registration, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies ,s- I ! To, TJ T t HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 I I I I i l I I : ORDER WP.No.11227 of 202i -i4 () .J o o 2 3 AUE 2025 . oE,; t4,.i'cHf 'f DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o\ l I I I