High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.4 while refusing to register the Sale Deed Dated 04.07.2025 bearing Pending Document No.39/2025 presented by the Petitioners in respect of Plot No.3, admeasuring 238 sq.yds, Plot No.S, admeasuring 225 sq.yds, Plot No.6, admeasuring 225 sq.yds, Plot No.16, admeasuring 225 sq.yds, Plot No.34, admeasuring 225 sq.yds, Plot No.37, admeasuring 225 sq.yds and Plot No.38, admeasuring 225 sq.yds, together admeasuring 1588 sq.yds in Sy.Nos.474 and 476 situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, Abdullapurmet lt.4andal, Ranga Reddy District vide its Refusal Order No.06/2025 Dated 10.07.2)25 through its Letter Dated 10.07.2025 in Lr.No.145l2O25 without registering the same as illegal, arbitrary, in gross violation of principles of natural justice urrder Article 14, 21 and 300 (A) Constitution of lndia and against the provisions of law and consequently setaside the Refusal Order No.06/2025 Dated 10.O7.2021 vide its Letter Dated 10.07 .2025 in Lr.No.145/2025 thereby to register the, Sale Deed, Dated 04.07.2025 presented by the Petitioners pertaining to tt e above property by releasing the same 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 petition, the High Co.rrt may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to register th,: Salr,. Deed, Dated 04.07.2025 bearing Pending Document No.39/2025 presented by the Petitioners in respect of Plot No.3, admeasuring 238 sq.yds, Plot No.5, admeasuring 225 sq.yds, Plot No.6, admeasuring225 sq.yds, Plot No.16, adrneasuring 225 sq.yds, Plot No.34, admeasuring 225 sq.yds, Plot No.37, admeasruring 225 sq.yds and Plot No.38, admeasuring 225 sq.yds, together admeas.rring 1588 sq.yds in Sy.Nos.474 and 476 situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, l,bdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District thereby to release the same by su spending the Refusal Order No.06/2025 Dated 10.07.2025 vide its Letter )ated 10.07.2025 in Lr.No.14512025 passed by the Respondent No.4. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G.RAJESHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SMT S.SRAVANTHI|, AGP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER -*-&-<* / THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No,22334 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri G.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record. With their consent, this writ petitiorr is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners subrr.its that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2Ot9 and batch dated 11.O1.2O23 and also the rccent Judgment of the Hon'l:le Sr-rpreme Court in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrar r and requested to pass similar ordcr in this writ petition 3 Learned Assistzrnt Government Pleader for Stamps zrnd Registration has not disputed the submission made bv the learned counsel for the I 2025 scc Online SC 74O SI(,J W,P,^.').22334 of 2O25 petitioners. He submits that the petitioner.s have not submitted the document before the responclents and if they subrnit the document, they have to crnsider the sarne subject to compliance of the provis;ons of the Registratir>n Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp, Act, 1899 4 T'he relevant portion of t ire order in W.P.No.16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated tl.Ol.2O23 is as under

13. Thc power of the registcring authority lo refusc registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections tlrat are enumera ted under the provisions of the Registration Act 1908, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 19, 20, 21,22-A,3,1, 35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules Lrn(.rr the Registralion Act, 1908, are cxisting in respect of anl such documerLt presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumeratcd under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities hu.vc no authorit)' to refuse registration of a document on anl other ground. As already noted above, the ground on u,hi<.h thc impugnel refusal orders in all these batch of Writ petitiors are passed is that the link document shown in the resl)ective documents is a validated a:nd an unregistered document. tsy looking into a validity of the link document, the regi:;rerrng authority is indirectly verifying whether the executants rf the respective documents are having vatid title or not to ei-ccute the documents in question. As hetd in the above re ferred judgmenl in the case of Dr- yadla Ramesh Naidu (1 suprirl, the registering authority is not entitled fo go into the title of the parties to the document. It is a settled law that the \, -.ndee 3 srr'!"r W.P.No.22334 ol 2025 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 particular document, the vendce under Lhc said document does not gct any title over such property and mere registration of such document will not have an effect on the property rvhich is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightl], conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Regrstration, the registcring authorities arc not entitled to rcfuse registration of a document on mere ground that the title o1- the executants of Lhe respectivc document is based upon the vatidated document, though the same is compulscril-1, registerable document cannot be accepted and such a ground is not availablc to the registering authorilics to refuse r-cgistration o[ a documeLrt on that ground.

19. In the light oI the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering authorities are not entitled to refuse registration of a document on the grounci that the link document referreC to in thc respective document is a validated document or to refrise registration ol such document by placing reliance on cndo.sement, dated 02.C1.2008, issued by the Commjssioner and hrspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and Writ petitions are allo$,ed with a further direction to the respondent registering authorrtres to receive the returned documcllts and to process the same subject to the coldition of the said documents compl_ving with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 5 In K. Gcpi's case (supra I ), the FIon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The registering officer is nor concerncd,,vith the title held by the executa t. He has no adiudicatorl por..rer to rlecide 4 sr,J W.P.M.22334 of 2O25 \ rhether the executant has any title. Even if an ei..cutant executes a salc deed or a lease in respect of a land in rr:spect c,f u,hich he has no title, the rcgistering officcr cannot r.luse t,l register -he document il all the pl-occdural compliances a.e mad: and the necessary stamp duty as well as rcgistration cha -ges/fc: are paid. We may nole here that under the scheme pf llre 19otl Act, it is not the lunction of the Sub Reglstrar or Rerlrsterin3 Authority to ascertain lvhether the vendor has title to th3 property nhich he is seeking to transfer. Once the rei,lstcrrnl aulhorit:/ is satrsfied that the parties to the docun-(.nt ar3 present before hrm and the parttcs admit excclttion thereof be forc him, subject to makiug procedural cornplia: Lr:es a; narratcd abo\/e, the document must be regtstered. 'lhc c:.,'cution and registrafion of a dor:ument have the eilect of trar.slerrin;3 onl! those flghls, i[ an\, that the executant possessel If th,: executarrt has no right, title, or interest in the propenv th,l registered document cannot effect an\. trans[er. 6 In view of the order passed in W.P.No.1611 10 of 2019 ancl batch dated l\.O1.2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supremc Court in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and lor the reasons ment.ioned therein, the Writ Petition is disposed of by srrtting aside the Refusal Order No.06 of 2025 dated tO.O7.2025 and directing the respondent authorities to receit,e arrd register the sale deed presented by petitioners 1n respect of the subject plots, subject to condition of the said document complyinpr, rvith the 5 S.K,J W.P.No,22334 ol 2O25 provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs. To, 7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (g., SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Stamps and Registration) Secretariat, Hyderabad, State Of Telangana.

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

3. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, Prashanth Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad.

4. The Sub-Registrar, Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District. 5. One CC to SRI G.RAJESHWAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies o BSR HIGH COURT DATED: 0410912025 ORDER WP.No.22334 of 2025 1 li SEP '/025 \ ;,', S,'4 r '''' "./'i. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \.U