High Court · 2025

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 an Order Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to and in connection with the Refusal order of the sth Respondents bearing intimation of refusal order communicated through vide letter lVlemo No, '147lSRO/Ghatkesar/2025, dated. 1910612025 refusing to registrar the sale deed vide P. No. 99/2025, Dated. 1910612025, relating to Open Residential Plot bearing No.71112, in Survey Nos.63,64,67,68 and 69, admeasuring 240 Sq.Yds., or 200.6 Sq.mts., Situated at Aushapur Village, Under Ghatkesar lvlunicipality, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal_ Malkajgiri District. Telangana state (Herein called as said property) for the reasons based on validated document violating section 17 of registration Act. (W.A No 446 of 2021) for being illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the registration Act, 1908, discriminatory and unconstitutiona I and consequently further direct the 4th and 5th Respondent to register and release the document purported to be a sale deed. |.A.NO:1 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 4th and Sth respondent to register and release the pending document P 9912025, dated. 19-06-2025 retating to open Residential ptot bearing No.711t2, in Survey Nos.63, 64, 67, 68 & 691 admeasuring24O Sq.yds., or 200.6 Sq.mts., situated at Aushapur Village, under Ghatkesar Municipality, Ghatkesar Mandal, lMedchal-Malkajgiri District. Telangana state pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI N.ANIRUDH Counsel for the Respondents : AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER w. P.No.18233 of2025 SI(, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.18233 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and perused the entire materia-l 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. 163 1O of 201.9 and batch dated Il.Ol.2023 and also the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gcpi Vs. The Sub-Registrarr 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 learned counsel for the petitioners. 4 The relevant portion of in W.P.No.16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as under:

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated I 2025 SCC Onl-ine SC 740 ,1 2 SI(, J w.P No 18233 of 2025 l under the provisions of the Registration Act, 19Og, and the Rules made thcreunder in particular Sections lg, ZO,2l,22 A, 34,35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 190g, are cxisting irL respect of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 190g, the registerir.rg authoritics have no authority to refuse registration of a documcnt on an], other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in alt 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 indirectlv verifying whether the executants of the respectiue documents are having valicl 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 settied law that the'endee under a document \iill not get a better title tiran his vendor and in case if vendor is not having a valid tifle over the property which is the subject mattcr 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 on the property rvhrch 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 entifled to refuse registration of a document on mere ground that the title of thc executants of the respective document is based upon the validated dor:ument, though the same is compulsorily registerable document cannot be accepted and such a ground is not avallable 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 entided to refuse rcgistration 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.O1.2OO8, issued by the Commissioner and 3 w.P.No.I8233 oI2025 SK, J 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 retur-ned 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. In K. Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under; "The registering ofltcer is not concerned with the titte 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 tand jn respect of which he has no title, the registering ofhcer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural complianceq 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 ol 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 authorify 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 of transferrin8 only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. [f the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.

6. In view of the order in W.P.No.163 1O of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 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 is allowed by 4 W.P No.18233 of 202-s SI\. J 'I setting asicle the Refusal Order vide Memo No. 147lSRO/Ghatkesar/2025 dated 19.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.5 and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to receive the returned document and process the same subject to condition of the said documents complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 19OB and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thbre shall be no order as to costs. 7 . Miscellaneous petitions, if aly pending in this writ petition, shali stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR tI. Y\ SECTIOI+OFFICER To at Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat State of Telangana 2 The Distrrct Collector, Medchal- Malkajgiri District Hyderabad 3. The Commissioner Stamps and Registrar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 The District Registrar, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. 5. The Sub Registrar, Ghatkesar, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI N.ANIRUDH, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies SA BS lW' RTHEs t4 1B jirl Z0Zs * t:L) i1 -.) 't r HIGH COURT DATED:3010612025 ORDER WP.No.18233 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \7