Smt Rosie Sheena John 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Orders or Direction, declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the refusal order vide Memo No.92 of 2025 dated 22-04-2025 refusing to receive and register the Sale Deed in respect of l'and bearing Plot No. 181 , 182, 183, Sy.Nos 2491P, 2621P and 2641P, J.T.Colony, Admeasuring 1000 Sq.Yards, Situated at Ghatkesar Village and Municipality, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medhcal- Malkajgiri District, and Consequently, direct the Respondent No.3 to register and release the document i.e., Sale Deed bearing pending registration No. 63/2025 dated 25-03-2025, in respect of above said land. 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 direct the Respondent No.3 to register and release the document i.e., Sale Deed bearing pending registration No. 63/2025 dated 25-03-2025, tn respect of land bearing Plot No. 181 , 182, 183, Sy.Nos 2491P,2621P and 2641P, J.T.Colony, Admeasuring '1000 Sq.Yards, Situated at Ghatkesar Village and Municipality, Ghatkesar Mandal, N/edhcal-Malkajgiri District, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER I - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH IVRIT PETITION No.1385O of 2025 ORDDR: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 11.07.2023 and also the recent Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in K. 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 petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has not I , ,or" BCC Online SC 74O .--- sx,J W.P.No-1385O of 2024 submitted the document before the respondents and if they submit the document, they have to consider the S IT1C subject to compliance of the provisions of the Registration .Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act. 1899. 4 The relevant portion of thc order in W.P.No. 1613 1O ol 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as under: l3. The porver of the registering authority to refuse registration is onlv, if anv of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the crovisions of the Registration Act, 1908, ancl 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 enume.ated under thc provrsions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a docuftent on anv other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orde.s 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 looking into a validitv of the link document, the registering authority is indirectly verifying u'hether the executants of the respective documents are having valid title or not to execute the documents in question. As held in tht 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. It is a settled law 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 subje( t matter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such ProPerty and mere t I ., 3 sr,J w.P.No.7385O oJ 2O24 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 leamed Govemment 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 validatea 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. tn the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering 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 on endorsement, dated O2.Ol.2OO8, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the resprective 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 Reglstration Act, l9O8 and the lndian Stamp Act, 1899. 5 In K. Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The registering officer is not concerned $,ith the title held bv 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 proc&ural compliances are made and the necessal-y stamp duty as well a\ registration charges/fee are paid- We may note here that under the scheme of the 19O8 Act, it is not the function of the Sub Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor I I 4 w.r.nn.neso "7if;il has title 10 the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the regrstering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present belbre him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the docum(lnt must be registered. The execution and registration of a documenl have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that thc executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any tra nsfer. 6 In ,;iew of the order passed in W.P.No.163 10 of 20 19 and b:etch dated II.OI .2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon't>le Supreme Cour:t in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition 1S disposed of directing the respondent aut.horities to receive anrl register the sale deed presented by the I petitioner in rcspect of the subject plots without reference to the Merno No.92/SRO/Ghatkesar /20'25, dated

22.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 udth respect to the intimation of refusal of the pending Document No.P.63/2025 and subject to condition of the said document complying with the provisiorrs of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs. I I t - 5 SK,J w.P.No- 13A5O of 2O24

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S. PRAS SISTANT R SECTION OFFICER I \ To, H

1. The Principal Secreta Department Secretariat, to the Governme yderabad, State of T 2. The Commissioner and lnspector General, Registration and Stamps, Nizam Stamps and Registration Shahi Road, Mozamjahi [Vlarket, Osman Gunj, Hyderabad. 3. The Sub-Registrar Ghatkesar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 4. One CC to SRI GAJANAND CHAKRAVARTHI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Stamps and Registration, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI D BSR IMP Two CD Copies 4/ HIGH COURI' DATED:01 l0a;12025 ORDER WP.No.13850 of 2025 ,6- Erl1eo7 i gsiuilzE: o '1, Or--^ ,-^TC1 r \ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @'"k* /."