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

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO: 16'153 OF 2025 Between:

1. M.Sudheer Kumar,, S/o. M.Rameshwar Rao, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Private Service, Rio, Flat No.1 02, 'lst Floor, Vysya Bank Apartments, Plot No.13, Huda Complex, Saroornagar, Hyderabad 500 035 Presently residing at Flat No.501, 5th Floor, Anokhi, Apurupa Apartment, PIot No.72, Kaviiri Hills, Phase 2, Beside SBl, Shaikpet, Hyderabad 500 033.

2. Kande Madhu,, S/o. Kande Sathaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.38, Sairam Nagar Colony, Near Rangasai Super Market, Champapet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District 500 079. ...pETtTtoNERS AND

1. The State of Telangana,, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

2. The District Registrar,, Ranga Reddy Diskict 3. The Sub-Registrar., Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District 4. The Commissioner and lnspector General Registration and Stamps,, Telangana' Hyderabad ...RESpoNDENrs Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, Direction or Writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Refusal Order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 thereby refusing to register the sale deed dated 15.05.2025 vide P.No. 3112025 on the ground that the registered link document is a validated sale deed vide File No. '17353/AR12021 dated 07.05.2025 in respect of Plot No.36 admeasuring 433 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.386/12 situated at Pasumamula Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal (formerly Hayathnagar Mandal), Pedda Amberpet Municipality (formerly Pasumamula Gram Panchayat), Ranga Reddy District as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to Order Dt. 11.01 .2023 in W.P No.1631012019 and batch and being violative of An14,21 and 300,4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same and further direct the Respondent No.3 to receive and register the sale deed Dt 15.05 2025 vide P.No 31/2025 in accordance with law lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to receive and register the sale ceed Dt. 15.O5.2025 vide P. No 3112025 in respect of the PIot No.36 admeasuring 433 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.386/12 situated at Pasumamula Village, Abdullapurm,-.t Mandal (formerly Hayathnagar Mandal), Pedda Amberpet Municipality (forrnerly Pasumamula Gram Panchayat), Ranga Reddy District in accordance with law, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V. YADU KRISHNA SAlNATt.l Counsel for Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTIIATION The Court made the following: ORDER ' s.' .a". %, :' ,/_/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.16153 of 2025 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'16310 of 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 ald Registration has not disputed the submission made by Lhe learned counsel for the petitioners 12025 SCC OnLine SC 740 2 \*i.:€frrst \. ".:tI /'': '. , SK, J wP.16153 2025 - 4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as under:

13. The porver of thc registering authoritl to rcfusc r(rgistr-atron is only, if an\' of thc grounds or objections thal are enurnlrated under the provisions o[ the Registration Act, 1908, and tlrc Rulcs nrade thereunder in particular Sections 19,20,21,22-A, 34.35 and rulc 58 of the 'l'elangana Rules undcr the Registration Art, 1908, arc existing in respect of any such documcnt prcser ted for thc registration. Dxcept, the grounds or objcctions that ar( cnumerated under the provisions o[ the Registration Act, 1908, tlr(_' registcring authorities have no authority to rclusc registration of a document on any other grolrnd. As already noted above, the ground on q.hich the impugned refusal orders rn all these batch of Wrir pctitions are passed is that the link documcnt sho$n in thc respectt,'c documents is a validated and atr unregistered document. B-v lcoking into a validity of the link document, the registering authorit\ rs indirectly verifying whether the exccutants of the respcctive (locuments arc having valid title or not to exccute the (locumcnts ir. question. As held in thc above refelrcd judgmer.rt in thc case ol Dr. \'adla llamesh Naidu (1 supra), the rcgistering authority is not entitled to go into the title of the parties to tltc document. It is a settled law rl.at the vendee under a document will not get a better title than his r-endor and in case if vendor is not having a valid title over the prol',erty which is the subject matter o[ a particular documcnt, thc vcn(Lee undcr the said document does rlot get an]' title over such prol), rty and mere registration of such document \\,ill not have an effect or1 the propertj, which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightly conceded by the tearned Govg1np61.1 pleadcr for Stamps and Registration, thc registering authorities aJ.e not enti ed to refuse rcgistration of a documcnt on mere ground llrat the titlc of the executants of the respective document is based upon the validated document, though the same is compulsority registerabte document cannot be accepted and such a ground is n )t available to l i I I t I I ! i I i av-.,-7.. I I I 3 SK, J wP 16153_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 entitled to refuse registration of a document on the ground that the link document referred to in the rcspecti!'e document is a validated document or to refusc regrstration oI such document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.O1.2008, issued by the Commissioner and lnspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugncd orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and Writ Petitions are allowed wrth a lurther direction to the respondent registering authorities to rccetvc the returned documents and to process the same subject to the condition of the said documents complying with the provisions of thc Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

5. ln K.Gopi's case (supra 1), the Honble SuPreme Court held as under: "Thc registering officer is not concerned with the title hetd by the cxecutant. He has no acljudrcatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Dven Lf an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect o[ a land in rcspect of which he has no title, the registering of.rcer 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 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 conpliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those riShts, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or I 4 x% SK, J wl) t6153 2025 interest in the property, the registcred document cannol effect any transfer.

6. In 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (s;upra i) ald for the reasons mentioned therein, the WrLt Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of Refusal dated 15.05.2025 passed by the respondent No'3 and the respondent authorities are directed ro receive the returned documents and process the same :;ubject to the condition of the said documents compl-v"ing with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 altd the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order zi:; to costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pendirl,3 in this writ petition, shall stand closed. S /,TRUE COPY/' d/- P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR At SECTION OFFICER 1 To, 1 2 3 The District Reg istrar,, Rang a ReddY District The Sub-Registrar', Pedda AmberPe t, Ranga Reddy Districl The Commissioner and lnspector Ge neral Registration and Stamps,, Telang ana, HYd ela bad One CC to Sri V Yadu Krishna Sainath Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP For Stamps And R Telangana. [OU 6. Two CD CoPies egistration,High Court for the State of 4 5 MBC b h{IGH COURT SK, DATED: 1610612025 (-"" o i) --:-''- --" ' c-P. 'i'<, r{: 62 trJ N m 2 ((, (- ; ORDER WP.No.16153 of 2025 I I i I I @co1;4 5t Ael'( DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS