1. Smt.Paranda Balamma v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Arlicle 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned lntimation bearing No. P213612O24 dl. 12-1-2024 refused the pending Document No. 212024 on the ground that the petitioners not got the property through a valid registered documents, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other i I o relief or reliefs as this Honb'le Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IAN O: I 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 herein to suspend the lmpugned lntimation bearing No. P213612024 dt. 12-1-2024 and to process the P.No. 2/2024 and release the same, pending disposal of the maln Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. G CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER w '/d l f I -t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH IITRIT PETITION No.14810 of2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 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 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 2O19 and batch dated ll.OL.2O23 and also the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi Vs The Sub-Registrart and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputecl the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. t2025 SCC Online SC 74O 2 SK, J wP t4a10 2025

4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 1 1'01.2023 is as under:

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enum( rated 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 ,locument on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on u'hich the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the link document shown in the respecti\e documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authoritl is indirectly verifying whether the executants of the respective dccuments are having valid titlc or not to execute the documents in question. As held in the above referred judgmcnt in the case of Dr. \ adla 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 vendce under a document will not get a better title thal his rendor 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 under the said document does not get any title over such property and mere registration of such document will not have an effect olr the property which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightly conceded by tire learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, the registering authorities a1e not entitled to refuse registration of a document on mere ground that the title of nr' ttre 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 -l n 3 SK, J wP_14ato_2025 the registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground.

19. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering authorities are not entiued to refuse registration of a document on the ground that the link document referred to in the respective documeut is a validated document or to refuse registration of such document by placing 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. i ,.1 1 l l

5. In X.Gopi's case (supra 1), the Honble Supreme Court held as under: 'The registering offrcer is not concerned $,ith the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if aI 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 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 ffansfer. 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 compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution artd registration of a document have the effect of tralsferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer. f 4 SK, J wP_14810_2025 1"

6. In view of the order in W.p.No.163 10 of 2019 and batch dated IL.OI.2O23 aud also tJ'e 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 by setting aside the impugned order of Refusal dated 12.01.2024 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, 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// SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR /t4 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registratioin and Stamps) Secretariat Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner and the lnspector General, (Registration and Stamps)' Hyderabad.

3. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District- 4. The Sub-Registrar, Vanastalipuram R.R.District. 5. One CC to SRl. G CHANDRASEKHAR Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION 'High State of Telangana. [OUT] court for the

7. Two CD CoPies v^ I HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 / t o "1 .$ "l 1':. .,flN. \q' "r1.! cru + t -\\-fiz )': a;' ORDER WP.No.1481O of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A ,r{ w