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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.18O52 of 2o.25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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 ll.Ol.2o23 and also the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble 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 petitioners. He submits that the petitioners have not I 2OFS SCC Online SC 74O \ a sriJ W.P.No.1aO52 ol2025 submitted the document before the respondents and if they submit the document, they have to consider the sarne subject to compliance of the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No. 16310 of 2079 and batch dated 1 1.01.2023 is as under:

13. The power of the registering authority to rellse registration is only, if any of the grounds or -objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 19 , 20, 21, 22 A, 34, 35 ar,d. rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registratiorr Act, 1qO8, are existing in respect of any such document presented for the registration. trxcept, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse reglstration ol 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 respe(--tive documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking into a validity of the link document, the registering author-ity 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 entitl(]d 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 titte over the property which is the subject matter of a particutar document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such prouerty and mere I 3 registration of such document will not have an effect on the property which is the subject matter of the said document. w.c.N,.uosz "yif;i{ 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 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. 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 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 arld 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 lndian Stamp Act, 1899.

5. In K..Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The registering ofhcer is not concerned with the title held by 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 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 I 4 *.r.*".uosz qif;ils has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satished 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 executron and registration of a document have the elfect of transferring only those rights, if anv, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registercd document cannot effect any transfer. 6 In view of the order passed in W.P.No. 16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated ll.OL.2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition 1S disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive and register the sale deed presented by the petitioners 1n respect of the subject plots without reference to the Memo No.145/SRO/Ghatkesar /2025, dated 19.O6.2025 issued by the respondent No.s with respect to the intimation of refusal of the pending Document No.P.97/2025, dated 19.06.2025 and subject to condition of the said document complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 19O8 and the Indian Starnp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs 5 sr(,J W.P.No.18052 oJ 2O2S 7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI FFICER To,

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The Principal Secretary , Revenue Department' Secretariat T'S"Hyderabad +# bili#ttj[ttor, furbo"nrl- Malkaisiri District H.vderabad The commissioner, Stamps aiiO Regid[rar'f"lampally' Hyderabad iilE Sitiii"i n".qistrar, Mebchal- Malkajsiri District -. . +H 5;;"R;;i;irai, b'nat<esa', Medchi l- Mg![ajs i ri D istrict Advocate [ul-uul . -. - one CC to SRl. N. ANI RUDH ' Y"lE "cLit""' o*i'ron srxirilpb' nNo'nEcrSrnertoN ,High court for the siii" oii"iangana at Hvderabad [ouTl Two CD CoPies BM GJP M HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ORDER WP.No.18052 of 2025 thlE S14 14: ( 29 IIJBffi 6 f- /1 , DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS O'',,0 $