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

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO: 12962 OF 2025 Between: Mrs. Rehana Sultana, W/o. Sri [\rlohammed Fakruddin, Aged about 49 years, Occ; Housewife Fl/o. Plot no.75F, Phase-3, lbrahimbagh, Golconda, Hyderabad -500 03'1 Telangana State. ....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration of Stamps and Registration, Telangana, Hyderabad. 3 The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Sub Registrar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in registering the pending document P.No. 8 of 2025 vide its refusal order No. 01 of 2025 dated 0910112025 for the petitioner's open plot No. 275 admeasuring 375 Sq. yards equivalent to 313. 5 Sq. Mtrs in Survey No. 74, 75 BO 76 situated Telephone Nagar, Munaganoor Village (Earlier Hayathnagar Mandal, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Under Turkayamjal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, ''n which is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia l.A.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 direct the 4th respondent to register the pending Docurnent p.No. g of 2025 vide its refusal order No. 01 ot 202s dated 09-01-2025 , for the petitioner's open plot No. 275 admeasuring 375 sq. yards equivarent to 313. 5 Sq. Mtrs in Survey No. 74,75 and 76 situated rerephone Nagar, Munaganoor Vi age (Earrier Hayathnagar Mandal, Abduilapurmet Mandal, Under Turkayamjal Municiparity, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt MOHAMMED MUDABBTR ALI KHAN Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR REVENUE The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.12962 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

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 a:ad batch dated ll.Ol.2o23 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

3. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12025 SCC OnLine SC 74O wP t2962 2025 2

4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No. 163 10 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 1 I 'O 1'2023 is as under: "t'hich

13. The power of the registering authority to refusc registratlon ls only, if arly of the grounds or ob.;ections 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 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 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 impugned rcfusal orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions arc passed is that the link document shown in the resPective documents is a validated and an unregistered document B-y looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirectlv verifying whether the executants of the respective documents are having valid title or not to execute the documents in question As hetd 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 title of the parties to the document lt is a settted la\\' that the vendee under a document $'ilt not get a better title than his vendor and in caseifvendoriSnothavingavalidtitleoverthepropertyrvhichis the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee undcr the said document does not get any title over such property aIId mere registration of such document will not have an effect on the property which is the subject matter of the said document \ 'I

14. As rightly conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Stamps arld Registration, the registering authorities are not entitled to refuse registration of a document on mere ground that the title oI 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 availat'le to 3 SK, J wP t2962-2025 the registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground.

19. tn the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondcnt registering authorities are not entitled to refuse registration of a document on the ground that the link document referrcd to in the respective document is a validated document or to refuse registration of such document by ptaci4g reliance on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner and lnspector 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, 1899.

5. In K.Gopt's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. Hc 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 ofhcer cannot rcfuse 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 Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registcring authority is satished that the parties to the document are present before him 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. [f the executant has no right, title, or I -,ffi \*# \ 4 SI(,.J \\P I2962 2025 interest in the property, the reglstered document cannot effect any transfer

6. ln view of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated ll.Ol'.2}23 and a,lso the Judgment of the Honble 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 O9.01.2025 passed by the respondent No'4 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, 19O8 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 \ To //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat Building, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration of Stamps and Registration, Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Sub Registrar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI MOHAMMED MUDABBIR ALI KHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies ?L SA/BSK 'r '-i- : a. 5-]. -p : * : -.- .---.,;=gfr HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.12962 of 2025 Ei-la a€ U ? 3 JUil 2p5 t_!' z (: t OF '.Ta -r)' DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. (+- t\g) 1s 6 z)