The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2

3. The District Registrar, Stamps and Registrations Department, Hyderabad (South), Enagadda, Hyderabad

4. Sub Registrar, RO(OB) Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (South), Hyderabad ...RESPONOENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the lntimation of Refusal No.2012024 dated 6-7 -2024 passed by the 4th respondent and appeal order passed by the 3rd respondent in Appeal No.4 ot 2024 dated 27-8-2024 in file No.CC/5136/2024 as invalid being violative of lndian Registration Act 1908 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to allot the regular Document Number and release the same as the entire process of registration is over deleting the pending document number in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THOMAS LLOYD CounselfortheRespondents:GPFORSTAMPSANDREGISTRATION The Court made the following: OROER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH ON No TPE TITI .2at97o t2024 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners ald learned Government pleader for Stamps ald Registration and perused the entire material on record. 2 l,earned counsel for the petitioners submits that the squarely covered by the orde:: W.P.No. 163 10 of 2Ot9 and batch Judgment of the Horr,ble Registrarr and requcsted rssue involved in this writ petition is Passed by this Court dated 1 1.O1.2023 and also the recent Supreme Court in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub_ to pass similar order in this writ petition. 3 IN Pleader for Stamps; and the submission made by the Learned Government Registration has not disputed learned counsel for the petitioners 4. The in W.p.No.t63t0 under: relevant portion of of 2Ol9 and batch dared 1 1.O1.2O23 ls as .

13. The power of the regrsteri only, if any of the grounds or objec provisions of the Registration Act, 1 rn, particujar Sections lg, 2l), 21, rerangana Ruies under the Regrsrral ng authorily to refuse registration is trons that are enumeraled under tl.re 908, and the Rules made therellnder 34, 35 and rule 58 of the .22-A, lon Act, 19Og, are existing in respect ' 2025 scC Online SC 740 \=-! \i I 2 of any such document presented for the registration Except' the grounds or objectrons that are enumerated under the provisions of tt'c Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authorit'/ to refuse registration of a document on any other ground. As arready ,oted above' the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of tt'" link document shown rn the Writ Petitions are passed i" tt''t respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document By Iooking into a validity of the link document' the registering authortty is indirectlv verifving whether the executants ' are having valid title or not to execute the documents ln q in the above refcrred judgment in the case of Dr' Yadla Ramesh Naidu (l supra), the registering authority is not entitted to go into thc title of the tt is a settled law that the vendee under a document will not get a better titte than his vendor and in case i[ vendor is not having a varid titte over the property which is the subject matter o[ a particular document' the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such propert; and mere registration of such document uill not have an effect on tne property which is the subject matter of thc said ti:::""i.",,::tfi:j: ;t- ,,; dot..*""t ;#: document t4 As rightly conceded by the tearned Government Pleader for S:amps and Rcgistration' the registering authorities are not entitled to reruse registration of a docume* oa, -"r" ground that rhe title of the executants o[ the respective document is based upon the validated document, though the same is compulsorily registerable document cannot be accepted and such t *'o"'O is not available to the registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on that ground' t9. tn the light of the above' this Court is unhesitant to hold that orities are not entitled to refuse und that the link document referred validated document or to refuse placing reliance on endorsement missioner and InsPector General o the imPugned orders in the Writ Petitions are allowed with a ring authorities to receive the subject to the condition o[ ons of thc Registration Act' the respondent registering auth registration of a do"'ment on the gro to in the resPective document is a reBistration o[ such document bY dated 02.OI.2OO8, issued bY the Com Stamps and Registration Accordingty' tive Writ Petitions are set aside and respec further direction to the respondent registe retumed documents and to process the same the said documents complying with the provrsr 1908 and the Indian StamP Act' 1899 .:- 3 I

5. In K. Gopi,s held as under; case (supra 1), the Honble Supreme Court "The .egistering officer is not concerned with the -' :'""' oo"'-t't executant. He has no adjudicatory power to o-,0" *n.,ni.,,,nl:,...:J,i:: has any ritle. Even i[ an exec,r.^, ^.^^ --"- re spec r or a r..,a i,, .."p.", Jr';::}t i. ;::':" :, :1,:^: .:r#.iJ;.; cannot refuse to register th if all the procedural compriances are made and the na."at stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. *. nt"uo note here that under the scheme of the lgog Act, it is not ,n" nru, ol the sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain *n",,]'"t'ot tnt vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. o,ttt 1ce the registering authorrtv is satislied that the parties to the document 0."".., before him and the parties admit execution thereof before nrlnr." making procedural compli".r"e" as narrated above, the oo"rr'"'o'""'to t'"t be registered The execution and registration ofa document nuot't tnt effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the execuhnt oo",ut lf the execu.unt has no right, trtle, or interest in the property, ,nt""t"" e registered document cannot elfect any transfer.

6. In view of the order in W.p.No.163 IO of 20 19 and batch dated I 1.O1.2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi,s case (supra l) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of Refusal No.2O/2024 dated 06.07.2O24 passed by the respondent No.4 and the order in Appeal No.4 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024 ln File No.CCl5136/2024 passed by the respondent No.3 ard the respondent authorities are directed to receive the returned documents and Process the same subject to the condition of the said documents c omplying with the provisions,^ 4 of the Registration Act' 1908 and the Indian StamP Act' 1899. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions' if any pending in this writ 7 petition, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDD\ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /l / J' L__ SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Princioal Secretary, Stamps and Registrations Department' Telangana ' s6ir"iJr.6i, rint<bund, State rif Telangana, Hyderabad 2. The Commissiner and lnspector GqneralOf Stamps and Registrations' - c;;"ril;iorr"tangana, Nizam Shahi.Road, Mozamjahi Market' Herza EJtaiJ, nisata Abdull;h Colony, Jambagh, Hyderabad

3. The District Registrar, Stamps and Registrations Department' Hyderabad (South), Erragadda, HYderabad

4.TheSubRegistrar,RO(OB)BaniaraHills,Hyderabad(South)'Hyderabad 5. One CC to SRI THOMAS LLOYD, Advocate. [OPUC] 6.TwoCCstoGPFORSTAMPSANDREGISTRATION,HighCourtforthe State of Telangana. [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies. I BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 I t \.j ) 9{ HE Srafe 1 2 0 qlq .2025 C I * lrs"a lcs ;.o ORDER WP.No.28197 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @tr,q %,,