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

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 a writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in not receiving and processing the Gift Settlement Deed Presented before them for registration in respect of the properties i.e., open plot No.315 & 316 Adm. 149.00 Sq. yards or equivalent 124.56 Sq. Meters and in Plot No.314 Adm. 110.00 Sq. yards or equivalent 92.80 Sq. Meters in Sy. No.142, situated at Wadi-e-Bin Ali, Balapur Vitlage, Saroornagar Mandal, R-R. District, as being illegal, arbitrary violative of articles 14 and 21 of the constitutional of lndia besides violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law apart from contrary to the law laid down by this Honourable Court in P.Anitha and another vs the State of Telangana and others (W.P.No.16272 oI 2019) and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to forthwith receive and process the Gift Set ement Deed for registration in respect of the properties i.e., open plot No.315 & 316 Adm. 149.00 Sq. yards or equivalent 124.56 Sq. Meters and in plot No.314 Adm. 110.00 Sq. yards or equivalent 92.80 Sq. Meters in Sy. No.142, situated at wadi-e-Bin Ali, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unde. Section 1s1 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 respondent No.2 to forthwith receive and process the Gift Settlement Deed for registration in respect of the properties i.e., open prot No.31s & 316 Adm. '149.00 Sq. yards or equivarenr 124.56 sq. Meters ancl in plot No.314 Adm. .l'10.00 sq. yards or equivalent 92.80 Sq. Meters in Sy. No.142, situated at wadi- e-Bin Ali, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandar, R.R. District, pending.disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. TOKALWAR JYOTI DEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATTON The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.13561 of 2O25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

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. 163 10 of 2OI9 and batch dated ll.Ol.2o23 and also the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I(. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrarr and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners have not submitted the document I 2025 SCC Online SC 74O sI(,J W.P.No.13561 oJ 2025 before the respondents ald if they submit the document, they have to consider the same subject to cornpliance of the provisions ol the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 4, The relevant portion of in W.P.No. 16310 of 2OI9 and batch dated 1 1 .01.2O23 is as under:

13. The pou-er of the registering authority to refuse registration is only, il anv oi 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 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 19O8, are eiisting in respect of any such document presente(l for the registratLon. Except, the grounds or object'ions that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a dooument on any othcr ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Pelitions are passed is that the link document sho$'n in the respective (locuments is a valiclated and an unregistered document. Bv looking 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 (l supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go into the title of the parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendee under a rlocument will not get a better title than his vendor and in case if vendor is not having a valid title over the p()perll' which is the subjcct matter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such propert] and mere I I 3 sr,J Ii.,.P.No.13561 of 2025 registration of such document \a,ill 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 ol 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. ln the light ol the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent reglstering authorities are not entitled to refuse registration of a document on the ground that the link document referred to in the respective document is a validated document or.to refuse registration of such document by placing reliance qn endorsement, dated 02.O1.2008, issued b_v the Commissioner and lnspector General of Stamps and Reglstration. Accordingly. ttre 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 subiect 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 CASC (supra 1), the Hon'lole Supreme Court held as under: "The registering officer is not concerned with the title 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 rvhich 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 Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor . TII 4 w.e.x".tasat "yif;ils 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, subject to making procedural compiiances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring onl_v 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. In vier.r, of the order passed in W.P.No.l63 10 of 2OL9 and batch dated Ll.Ol.2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon'blc' Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition 1S disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive an<l register the sale deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject plots and subject to condition of the said document complving with the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Misc,:llaleous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, sh a1l stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/.A. P RATHIMA GISTRAR DEPUry RE To, oFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Stamps and Reoistration ^ !.eO1rtr.ne1t, Secretariai, Hyderabad, State Of Tetahgi;;."- - - 2. The Sub-Registrar, Champloet. Hvd'erabad. 3. One CC to Ms. ToKALWAR JYon DEVA REDDY. Advocate toPI ICI 4. Two ccs to Gp FoR srAMps & REGrsrRAnoi{, t-tigh-colrt r6iine state _ of Telang_ana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies S,ECTION BSR Y^- BS HIGH COURT DATED:01 105t2025 ORDER WP.No.13561 of 2025 e oB 1HE S 14 /6. i) o ( ,. 12 J|JN zIE 7 C) ^inllrrrfo DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

6.ra(A k"