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

1 Dr. Kailas Jaga{ighyrer Rao, S/o Late Kailas Bonthaiah aged about 81 years, occ CEo,_ISLEF DOGS, Rl/o N .t1B@ 18s31, aunsen] Drcdrr;" t6il: Wisconsin-53022, USA Gowri Shanker Kailas, s/o.Late Kairas Bo_nthaiah aged about 76 years, occ. 9y:IFqq!Vo H.No.352S, N. Causeway Btud. Ste ioao, MetairielL"Jiii"i 70002, usA. Bolh represented by Power of Attorney, sri chintara Venkatesham, S/o Late uranmatan, aged about 67 years, Occ. Advocate, FUo H.No.3_1_105. Sathva Sai Nilay_am, Santosh Nagir, Bhongir Town anri VfinOii,-VrOaO-ri 'e-i.;;6i",. District-508 1 16,Telangana State ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telanoana Department of Registration and Stamps, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabid. n'ep. ov irincipii se-dre[iv-" -

2. The Commissioner and Department, Hyderabad lnspector General, Registration and Stamps

3. The District Registrar, Registration and Hyderabad . Stamps Depa(ment, Red Hiils,

4. The Sub Registrar, Marredpally, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol 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 other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring the lntimation of Refusal bearing Lr.No. 5601P16212023/REFUSAL/2023 Dated oB-11-2023 issued by the 4th respondent as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 3004 of constitution of lndia and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and rules framed thereunder and consequently direct the 4th respondent to register partition Deed dated 05-08-2023 which was kept pending in p.No.62l2023 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition tnder 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 fourth respondent to register partition Deed dated 05-10-2023 executed by the petitioners which was kept pending under p.No.6212023 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. PRATUSHA BOPPANA Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR STAMpS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No. 15445 of 2o24 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners ald learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

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.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and also the recent Judgment of the Honble 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 Iearned counsel for the petitioners.

4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2OI9 and batchdated 11.01.2023 is as under: '2025 SCC Online SC 740 2 SK, J wP 15445 2024 -

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, 190g, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections lg, 20, 21, 22-A, 34,35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, l90g, are existing in respect of any such document presented lor the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 190g, the regrstering authorities have no authority to refuse registration o[ 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 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 (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 'endee 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 under the said document does not get any titte 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 rcgisterable 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. In 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 3 SK,.I wP 15445_2024 refuse registration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner and Inspector 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. ln K. GoPi'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. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any tltle. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a Iease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering ofhcer 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 o[ 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 u'hich 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 compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered The execution and registration of a document have the effect ot transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses' If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the properry, the registered document cannot effect any tran sfer

6. In view of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated ll.Ol.2o23 and also the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and 4 -I ,u"-rroar_85;i by the respondent for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ petition disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of Refusal dated 08. rr.2o23passed and the respondent authorities are directed to receive the returned documsnl5 and process the same subject to the condition of the sard documents complyin5J with the provisions of the R Act' 19o8 and the Indian stampAct, rg99. ,eglstration here shall be no order as to costs. 7. Miscellaleous petitions, if any pending in this writ petifion, sha-ll stand closed. No.4 //TRUE COPYII SD/- p.Ch. 1radee6 DEPU TYR USHAMB A EGISTRA R T o Saifabad Hyderaba d, State '1. The principal Secre 2.7he Commiss roner an Department, Hyderabad 3. The District Hyderaba d ,t sCTION OFFTCER of Regiskation and Stamps, Secretariat, d lnspector General, Registration and Stamps Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Red Hills, tary, Department of Telang

4. The Sub Registrar, Marredpally, HyderabaO 5. One CC to Ms. PRATUSHA BOPPANA, Advocate loPUCl R STAMP Hyderaba d [oul] S AND REGISTRATION

6. Two CCs State of ie Two CD Copies to GP FO Iangana at ,High Court for the 7 BSR GJP W HIGH COURT DATED:2 4l04t2O2S I ORDER WP.No.1544S ot 2OZ4 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \0 { $A D b I 1,r-' u,