High Court · 2025

Petition under S)ection '151 CPC praying that in the circumst lnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be p eased to direct respondent No 3 to receive and register .the Sale Deed prer;ented by the petitioners in respect of Plot bearing Nos 235 (2000 Sq'Yards), 573 (500 Sq Yards), 574 (5OO Sq.Yards), 589 (500 Sq Yards), 647 (500 Sq Yards), 7204 (500 Sq.Yards), 72OB (500 Sq.Yards), 807 (500 Sq.Yards), 997 (500 Sq Yards)' 998 (500 Sq.Yards), 1012 and 1012C (1000 Sq Yards) and 1012A and 10128 (1000 Sq.Yards), 1'146 (500 Sq Yards) and 1147 (5OO Sq Yards), total admeasuring 9,500 Sq.Yards, situated in Pragati Green Heights, Sector-'G" CoveredunderSy.Nos.5,6,16,17,18,12t1'12t2'141A'14lM,14lEE,14lE' 14tAA, 14lAAl2, 13tEE, 13tE, 13lAA, 131A, 5tAAl2, 5lEl2' 5lAl2, slE, 41lE,41lAA' 41tAt1, 41lAt2, 32tAA, 32tA, 32tE, 32tEE, 15.28tE, AotAA, 4olE, 40EE,271A, 28tA, 27lB,28lE and21lEE, situated at Gollapally Village, chevella lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District, without reference of Letter c and lG Endt.No.ClG.Mail/AR/2008' dated 02-01-2008 issued by the respondent no 2, pending disposal of the above wiit petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH MIT PETITION No.11548 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learlred counsel for the petitioners and learned Government I).eader for Stamps and Registrati tn for respondents ancl perused the entire material on record

2. Learrred counsel for the petitioners subm ts that the issue in1,6lvt:d in this writ petition is squarely cov:red by the order passr.<l bv this Court in W.P.No.163 10 of 2C19 and batch dated lI.t)1.2023 and also the recent Judgmen- of the Hon'ble Suprenre Court in K. Gopi Vs, The Sub-Reg,istrart and requested tc, pass similar order in this writ petition.

3. Lear r ed Government pleader for Stamp.s and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned counse I lor the petitioners. He submits tL at the petitioners have not submitted the document befc re the respondents and if they submit the document, the1, I rave to consider the sanre subject to compliance of the provisions of the Registratron {ct, 19OB and the Indian Stamp Act, 1,899. I 2025 SCC Onl-ine SCt 7.1 l 2 W.P.No.1 1548 of 2025 SK, J

4. The relevant portion of in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as under:

13. The power of 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 made thereunder in particular Sections 19,20,21,22-A,34,35 arld rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Reglstration Act, 1908, 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, 1908' the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a document on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the link document shown in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By tooking into a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirectly verifying whether the 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 (1 supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go into the titte of the parties to the document. It is a settled larv 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 rrnder the said document does not get any title over such property and mere registration of such document will not have an effect on the property 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 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 3 W.P.No.11 )48 oI2025 SK, J the registerinl authorities to refuse registration of a documcn on lhat grourd.

19. In trc Ught of the above, this Court is unhesitant to rold that the resp( rLdent registering authorities are not entitled to re use registration o a document on the ground that the link docunLent referred to in tre respective document is a validated document cr to rcluse registrition of such document by placing reliance on enclorsement, rlatcd 02.01.2008. issued by the Commissioner and lnspector Gerr,:ral of Stamps and Registration. Accordillgll., the impugned orders rn the respective Writ Petitions are set aside rnd Writ Petitions i..re allou,ed with a further direction to the respon( ent registering authorities to receive the returned documents anr to process rhe sltne subject to the condition of the said documr nts complying lvrtr the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 ancl the Indian Stamp qct. 1899.

5. In K. Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble S rpreme Court held as urrder "The reiajstering officer is not concerned with the title helc by the execLr[i1nt. Hc has no adludicatory power to decide whether the exccutant nas i.nl,titlc. Even if an executant executes a sale dee<lor a lease in reslx)cL o[ a land in respect of which he has no titlc, the registering officer car]not refuse to register the document if all the procedurai corrpliances are made and the necessary stamp dutJ as u,ell as registr a tion charges/fee are paid. We may note herc that under the schcrne o[ the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the S rb- Registral' or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the venlor has title to tht property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering aut roritl, is satisfreci that the parties to the document are present belore lirn and the parties admit execution thereof bel trre him, subject t> making procedural compliances as narrated abcve, the document r.ust be registered. The execution and registration of a document havr the r:ffect of transferring only those rights, if a:ry, that the execu..int possesses. If the executant has no right, titte, or interest in the i)ropertv, the registered document cannot effect z.ny transfer. 4 W.P.No.11548 of 2025 SK. J

6. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.163 10 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 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 disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject plots without reference to the Letter C & IG trndt. No.CIG.Mail/AR/2008 dated 02.0i.2008 issued by the respondent No.2 and subject to condition of the said document 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// SREE RAMA DEPUTY RE SECTION MURTH GIS/RA %r,.. R R The Principal Secretary Revenue (Stamps and Registration), Secretariat, Hvderabad, State of Telangana. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. The Sub Regisirar, Shanka-rpally, RangqReddy District One CC to SiRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, AdvOCAtE [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies ,s- To 2 3 4 6 PSK. BS HIGH COURI' DATED:21 10412025 ORDER VlP.No.11548 of 2025 ./a: '; r 1l .i .zi -'i:. ,a. z ar)\. ).\' C.\\ 2 Ar,fl 2m i)l l,: ir; 2 t'; \' l, '\: -!r--. O, \ ''-aar--o { DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS dJ