Judgment of the Hontrle Supreme Court in K. Gopi vs The Sub-Registrarl and requested to pass similar order

Judgment

1. 2 3 4 ...PETITIONER The State of Telanoana. reo. by its.principal Secretary, Rbvenue (Registration a nd Sta m ps) oepa-rtment, Secieta riai, iiile*;6;: Il!"?;fl?ltt"ner and lnspector General, (Resistration and Stamps) The District Registrar, Registration and stamps Medchar Markajgiri District. TheSub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps Ghatkesar, Medchal Malkajgiri *' r' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit rifeo irreiewitn, th; iii;,d,r;;; ;" pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order o." oir""i,on, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of lMandamu_s, decraring ir," ,"tion of the 4th respondent in issuing lhe impugned ord"f .9{ _!gly.ar of in" p"nUing Document No. p.46t2O23 vide Lr.No. Ref.No. 2BlsRo/GKR/2o23 dt.3a-ii-.zozz, r" being iregar, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutionar.and consequentty set asrae the saire, ;i-;;J;_th"_ same, and to gran{ such other rerief or reriefi as this Honbre cou.t o""rrlit ,no proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the peiitio;, iril iign Court may O" pr*."J t, 1u1q9^!__tne impugned order of the Refusat of "the pending, O"",;r-"ri N. p-46t2023 vide Lr.No.Ref.No. 28lsRo/G K'Uz}rs it. io-i-zozs'ir*"Jov ihl Jro respondent and to register and release the document kept, as P.l'lo. 4612023, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SARDAR JASBEER SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITI ON No. 1O853 of2O25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 2Ol9 and batch dated Ll.Ol.2O23 and also the recent Judgment of the Hontrle Supreme Court in K. Gopi Vs The Sub-Registrarl 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.

4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.163 1O of 2Ol9 and batchdated 11.01.2023 is as under: 12025 SCC Online SC 740 2 SK, J w.P N ).10853 of2025

13. The powt'r of the registering authority to refuse registratio 1 is only, if any or- the grounds or objections that are enumerated urrder the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules n.ade thereunder ir particular Sections 19, 20,21,22 A, 34,35 and rule 58 of the TeLangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are existing in espect ol any such document presented for the registration. Irxcept, the grounds or objections that are enumerilted under the pro.,isions of the Registration Act, 1908, the re$st€rtng authorities hiir e no authority to refuse registration of a documen t on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned reli sal orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is thai the link document shown in the respective docum,:nts is a validated and an unregistered document. BJ, Iooking in o a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirt ctly verifying \a,hether the executants oI the respective documents are having valicl litle or not to execute the documents in question As held in the abc,ve referred judgment in the case of Dr. Yadla Ran resh Naidu (1 supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go int( the title of the parlies to the document- [t is a settled law that the ver Ldee under a document will not get a better title than his vendor anl in case if vendor is not having a valid title over the property which is the subject nlatter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document does not get aIIy title over such property and rtrere registration ol- such document will not have an effect on the prol)erty which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightLy conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, the registering authorities are not entrtled to refuse regislration of a document on mere ground that the tit e of the executant's of the respective document is based upon the validated document, though the same is compulsorily register lble document carrrlot be accepted and such a ground is not availabie to the registering authorities to refuse registration of a documen on that ground.

19. In lbe light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to 'lold that the respondent registering authorities are not entitled to re use -, a{gistration of a document on the ground that the link docunrent referred to in the respective document is a validated document or to I 3 SK, J W.P.No.1O853 of2O2S refuse registration of such clocument by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02-O1.2OOg, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the 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 complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, i899.

5. In K. Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon,ble Supreme Court held as under: 'The registering officer is not concerned with the tide 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 aIld 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 Registering 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 before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subjeet to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the documertt 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, tifle, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer. I I

6. In view of the order in W.p.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated ll.Ol.2o23 and also the Judgment of the Hon'lrle Supreme Court in K. Gopi,s case (supra 1) and l ,.,,4 4 SK, J w.P.Nc .10853 of 2025 for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of Refusal dated 30. 12.2023 passed by the responderrt No'4 and the respondent authorities are directed to rece'ive th€ 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 cosits' 7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in ttr'is writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI UTY REGISTRAR ,$t ECTION OFFICER The Principal Se<;retary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department' Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and Inspector General, (Registration and Stamps) Hyderabad. The District Registrar, Registration and Stamps Medchal lr/alkal,liri District. The Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps Ghatkesar, Medchal Malkajgiri District One CC to SRl. SARDAR JASBEER SINGH Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPforStampsandRegistrations,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at Hvderabad. [OUTI Two CD Copies g \ To,

7. KKS GJP f / HIGH COURT DATED:1110412025 ORDER WP.No.10853 of 2025 ( _+ o \ (: .c , a -tr 2 5 APn Z[25 * l)rl Sr,,.\ I .,,,!1. -a--' I t --: -. DISPOSING.THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (oTcf-'t9 -%6v a I