1. ,Sri,. Chintala Surender Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITIO N No.16139 OF 2 o.2s ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning action of the respondent No.4 in refusing to register the three (3) sale deeds, presented by the petitioners, vide (i) refusal Order No.2, in letter No. 12312025 (ii) refusal Order No. 3, in letter No. 1 24 I 2025 and (iii) refusal Order No.4 in letter No. 125 12025, all dated 16.06.2025 in the respect of the total property bearing plot Nos.693 and 694 in Sy.No. 174, admeasuring to an extent of 42O Sq.Yards, situated at Sai Surya Enclave, Macha Bollaram, Alwal, Medchal-Matkajgiri District (herein after referred to as 'subject property') and sought a direction to the respondent No.4 to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject property. sr(,J WP No.76739 of 2O2S

2. Heard Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/ s. Pcarl Law Associal.es, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.S.sravanthi, learned Assistant Govermnet plead.er fc,r' Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned senior cou,sel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife and the petitioner Nr:.3 is their vendor, from whorn the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 purchased subject property for a valuabie consideration of Rs.39 ,S4,OOO f - or-r I S.OS .2025 vide three separate documents and presented before the respondent No.4 and the sarrre \^rere refused to register through impugned refusal order Nos.2, 3 and 4 in letter Nos. 123, 124 and l2s of 2o2s dated 16.o5.2025 respectively on the ground that \ts*t.sushila s.Kamath i.e. the petitioner No.3 herein, had already sold the subject pr,perty to one ch.srinu through document No.g45/ 20 l,z on the file ',4 SKrJ WP No.76739 of 2O25 of SRO, Balanagar. Subsequently the said Ch.Srinu sold the sarne to one K.Ram Gopal Reddy and Chilukuri Srinivas Babji, who in turn sold to one Sri P.Maladri vide document No.2648 I2OLT and 3083/2017. The second reason stated for rejection is that the subject property is under Court litigation and O.S.No.342 /2OlB on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgir District and also in the light of instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps vide Circular No. 1 3450 /2OO7 dated 2t.o7 .2008

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioner No.3, who is the vendor of the petitioner Nos. I and 2, purchased the subject property through registered sale deed No.2316 / 1997 dated 05.08. 1997 from Mogulla Kistamma and 7 others thorough their agent M/s Ravi Shankar Real Estates and has been 1n f\' sr(,J WP No.76139 of 2O2S possession of the same and on purchase of the sarne the pel-itioners 1 and 2 are in possr:ssion a,d enjoyment clf the said property. In ttre month of August,20lT one p.Maladri along with his henchmen tried to trespass into subject property. on enqr-riry the petitioner No.3 found rh.t multiple sale deeds were created on the subject property ancl in view of the same the petitioner \c..3 tiled a Criminal case against p. Maladri, Ch. Srinu, Ch.Srinivas Babji, I(.Ram Gopal Re ddy, Muthu Lakshmi, M.Meena and the said case \^rils registered as FIR No.638 of 2017. Subsequently the police have filed charge sheet against the said lrorsons by deleting the name of P.Maladri as his invorvement in the alleged offence has not been established.

5. Ttre learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the said p.Malaclri filed a suit in o.s.No.427 of 2oLT on the file of Il-l\dditional Junior Civil Judge, Kushaiaguda, against the \ SK,J WP No.76139 of 2O25 petitioner No.3 and others for perpetual injunction and the said suit was dismissed on 3O. L2.2O24. The petitioner No.3 also filed O.S.No.342 of 20 18 on the file of Principal District Judge, at Medchal Malkajgiri for cancellation of sale deed No.845/ 2Ol7 dated O3.O2.2O17 and consequential documents, in which all the fraudsters were remained ex parte and P.Maladri as defendant No.4 filed Written Statement.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the registered deeds were created by the anti-social elements purporting to have conveyed the property by the vendors of the petitioners and P.Maladri has given up his rights by entering into an arrangement with his purported Vendor Ch.Srinivas Babji having agreed to take refund of sale consideration of Rs.21 Lakhs and having initiated lega1 process for dishonor of the said cheque 1S estopped to claim any title, right or \ -, sr(,J WP No.16739 of 2O25 interest whatsoever in the subject prclperty. The petitioner No.3 is having unimpeachable right, title and intr-'rest in the fabricated registered in struments which are per se uoid ab-initio and thr: petitioner No.3 is free to deal with the property' in her own rights. The pendency of civil suit in O.S.No.342 of 2OlB on the file of the Principal i)istrict and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkagjri d,r not hedge any limitation to deal 'urrith the proprerty or in "vith any wa)' effect her right to transfer of l-rer property.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for thrr: petitioners would submit that, the respondent No.4, cannot place any reliance on the encumbrance or any legal proceedings before the Civil Court or any Government Order, more particularly on the Circular Memo No. 1 3457 /2OOT dated 21.07 .2OO8 to refuse the registration of valid documents executed and presente:d by the petitioner No.3 in h<:r own right and therefore refusal of registration of ttre sale deeds sKrJ WP No.16739 of 2O25 presented by the petitioners v!'hich conform to the provisions of the Transfer o[ Property Act and lawfully purchased by the petitioncrs Nos. I and 2 for a valuable sale consideratior-r and requested to set aside the impugned refusal orders and sought a direction to the respondent No.4 to register the sale deeds presented by the petitloners.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention, placed reliancc on the following Judgment:

7. K.Gopi I/s. Sub-Registrqr and others I

9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4 would submit that the documents presented by the pe:titior-rer Nos.1 to 3 were kept pending for scrutiny and assigned document numbers as P-28, 29 and 30. On | 2025 SCC Online SC 740 i sr(,J WP No.76739 of 2025 examin ation of the documents presellted by the petitioners it \ /as found that the petitiotrcr No.3 has already. sold subject property to one Ch.Srinu vide document No.84 5/ 2017 on the file: of SRO Balanagar. Subscquently, the said Clh. Srinu has sold to onc K.Ram Gclpal and Ch.Srinivzrs Babji vide documcnt Nos. 1535 l2O 17 and 1579 I 20 17 respectively on the file of SRO, Vallarbzrbagar and said persolrs sold to P.Maladri viclc document No.2648 12017 and 3083 of 20 17 as sucir the subject property is involvcd in double zrnd triple registrations. Ttre pctitioners were infor"rned of their right to prefer appeai before the District Registrar as per Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 and without exhausting such right the petiti.oners filed the present writ petition.

10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that a suit for cancellation of - documents is pending between the petitioner No.3 'l SK,J WP No.16139 of 2O25 and the third parties vide O.S.No.342 of 20 1B on the file Principal District and Sessions Judge. Therefore, the respondent No.4 was well within his rights to refuse registration of the sale deeds presented by the petitioners and passed impugnecl orders. 'lhere are no merits and requested to dismiss thc writ petition. 1 1. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the subject property was purchased by the petitioner No.3 from her Vendors through registered document No.23 L6l L997 dated 05.08. 1997 on the file of S.R.O., Vallabh Nagar. Now, thc pe f.itioner No.3 wanted to sell the subject property to petitioner Nos.1 and 2,b:ut the registering authority refused to register the same by stating that on verification of the Encumbrance Certificate Records it shows that the petitioner No.3 had already sold the subject property to one Ch.Srinu through registered document No. 845 of 2OL7 and subsequcntly the ,\ Page 1O of 76 sr(,J WP No.76139 of 2025 said Ch.Srinu sold tl'rc same to one ii.Ram Gopal, and Chilkuri Srinivas t3abji, who in turn sold the said propcrtv to olro P.Maladri througl-r registered document Nos.264.8 of 2017 and 3083 of 2Ol7 and also pendency of O.S.No.342 of 2OlB on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, filed by the petitioner No.3 against Ch.Srinu, Chih-rl<uri Srinivas Babji, K. Ram Gopal Reddy and p. Vlaladri, for cancellation of thc documents

12. 'l'he contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner I\o.3 filed a Criminal Case on 15.09.20 17 in view of fabricated registered document No.845/ 2Ol7 ancl subsequent documents and the same was registered as CC No.94O oi 2,Ot8 on the file of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal. The suit in O.S.No.427 of 2OL7 on the file of Il-Additional Junior tlivil Judge, Kushaiguda, filed by p.Maladri against the petitioner No.3 and ch.Srinu, chilukuri i i SK,J WP No.76139 of 2O25 Srinivas Babji and K.Ram Gopal Reddy for perpetual injunction in respect of thr: subject property was dismissed on 30. 1 2.2024.

13. Admittedly, as per the material papers filed by the petitioners it clearly shows that the petitioner No.3 filed O.S.No.342 of 2OLB on the file of XVI Additional District Judge at Malkajgiri, against Ch.Srinu, Chilukuri Srinivas l3ab.ji, K.Ramgopal Reddy and P.Matadri for canccllatiorr of sale deed bearing No.845/2OL7 dated 0l).02 .2017 on the file of SRO. Balanagar in respect of the subject property and consequential documents, is still pending. As on this date, the registered documents in respect of the subject property are in favour of P.Maladri, who is the defendant No.4 in O.S.No.342 of 20 18, liled by the petitioner No.3. The charge sheet filed in the Criminal Case in CC No.940 Otr 20l B on ttre file of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal also the name of said P.Maladri has been deleted on sr(,J WP No.16139 of 2025 the ground that the alleged involvement of P.Maladri has not been established.

14. In spite o[ the pendency of O.S.No.342 of 2018 filed blz thc pctitior-rr:r No.3 herself for cancellation of registere<l cir>cumcnts pertaining to suit subject properl:)r, no\ / she wanted to sell the subject properly to petitioner Nos. I and 2 and in view of the same, the registering authority rejectecl registration of the clocuments presented by the petitioners on the ground of the pendency of the suit ancl the property is also irr thc: r-ramc of tl-rird parties

15. Ttrc lcarncd Selrior Counsel for the petitioners, by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar and others (supra) contends that the respondents have no power to verify the title of the parties. The said contention cannot bc acceptable as in the instant case, the petitionr:r No.3 herself filed a suit before sr(,J WP No.16139 of 2025 the competent Civil Court for cancellation of the document alleged to be executed by her in respect of the subject property. Moreover, the petitioner No.3 without impleading the third parties, who are the defendants in O.S.No.342 of 2018, filed the present writ petition. Further, as orr this ciate, tkre registered documents i.e. Document No.2647 o[ 2OL7 and 3083 of 2Ol7 in respect of thc subjcct property are in the narne of P.Maladri. In view o[ the sarne, the petitioner No.3 has no right to selI the subject property tiII the disposal of suit filed by hcrself in O.S.No.342 of 2018. In vir:rv of the same, the Judgment relied on by thc lcnrned Senior Counsel for the petitioners not apply to the lacts of the instant case.

16. The registering authority rightly rejected the documents presented by the petitioners as the petitioner No.3 has no right over the subject pro|?rty in view of registered document No.845 of sr(,J WP No.76739 of 2025 2017 on lirc lilc of S.lt O.. Balanagar alleged to be execute(i l.r'r"' her irr fervourr of one Ch.Srinu and also subseouent transactions. Unless the said documents are cancelled by the competent civil Court and the suit filed by the petitioner No.3 for cancellation of the said document is finalized before the Prirrciparl District Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri, the petitioner No.Il has rro right to seli the subject property

17. Tl-re petitioner No.3 tried to sell the subject propertri by presenting the documents before the registering authority bcfore finalization of civil suit for cancellation of thc l'cgistc:red document alleged to be exect.rtcd lty hcr in favour of Ch.Srinu and it shows i-l-rat tkre petitioner No.3 is claiming the subject property under parallel proceedings i.e. suit for cancellation of documents and instant writ petition and it cannot be acceptable. SK,J WP No.76739 of 2025

18. The contention of the petitioners is that the police have filed charge sheet against Ch. Srinu and others in the criminal case, but the same cannot be taken as conclusive proof as the same is pending and the same can be decided by the competent Civil Court where the petitioner No.3 filed a civil suit for cancellation of the registered document. If the petitioner No.3 obtains a favourable order in her favour in the civil suit, sh<: has right to sell the subject property. This Court cannot set aside the impugned rejecticlns orders in the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India as the subject property is not in the name of the petitioner No.3 as on this date and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

19. In view of the above finding, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. - r t I I I, t,l I a E, I I I i I I I l. { { I i i i I To, sr(,J WP No.76739 of 2025 Nlisceiianeous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY -ASSTSTANT RE9STRAR //rRUE coPY/ I"f sEcTtoN urrrcen One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

1. 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, t-lyderabad

3. The secretary, :Telangana Advocates Association Library, High court 4. One CC to M/s. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two ccs to GP FoR STAMPS AND REGlsrRATtoN ,High court forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BM Kt- PMK i HIGH COURT DATED:11 11112025 / / ORDER WP.No.16139 ot 2025 ( * o * { ti s [. 14 2t ll0Ug' Z * C DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS yC c"6'A t'(A-. eftt\a' r t, l:.f