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

Sri. Dantam Venkataramana occ ; Business . Rto 4_1_253. err"s, karlorgir'difl"lr,r, n p. ^S{o 51 D-antam Rambabu,- Aged about. 39 years, AND .....PETtiloNER ' IE,3...?t",# llS[13;;3i i"fi'i,.]?H5d 2. The Commissioner and lnqnpntnr r:6h6,^r <'l- bv its Principar secretary, stamps and o"p".t,ii"i.i, n,t" i:'^fl..iJt',ry:L?:General' Stamps and Resistration

3. The District Collector, Sangareddy, District Sangareddy; T.S. 4. The Sub-Reoistrar. Sub_ Registrar Office, patancheru (RO), Sangareddy, T.S. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articre 226 0f the constitirtion of rndia 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 particurarry one in the nature of writ of certiorari by caring for the records rerating to and in connection with the Refusal order of the 4th Respondents bearing intimation of refusar order communicated through vide refusar order No.67Bl2 5 Dt. 12-08-2025 refusing to registrar the sare deed viz pending Document No. 67g ot 2025, executed on 17- 06-2025 and presented on 19_07-2025, relating to property bearing Gram Panchayat No. 14-4511t214, lying and forming part of Sy. No. 1047/EE, admeasuring and conrprising on an area of 2419.44 sq. yrds or equivarent to 2022 '89 Sq Mtrs' (rncruding private common passage Area), situated at Ameenpur vi'age, Ameenpur Mandar and gram panchayat, presen,y under R.c. Puram and Patancheruvu of circle of GHtvlc, sanga Reddy District (Herein called as said property) lor the reasons based on valdated document violating section 17 of registration Act for being illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of the registration Act, .1908, discriminatory and u nconstitutiona I and consequently further direct the 4lh Respondent to register and release the Document No. 678 of 2025, executed on 17-06-2025 and presented on 19-07-2025 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 n support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direcl the 4th Respondent to register and release the pending Document No. 678 of 2025, executed on 17 -06-2025 and presented on 19-07 -2025 by suspending the Refusal order No 67812025, Dt. 12-08-2025, with respect to Property bearing Gram Panchayat No. 14-45t1r2t4,lying and forming part of Sy No '1047/EE, admeasuring and comprising on an area of 2419.44 Sq. Yrds or equivalent to 2022.Bg Sq. Mtrs;, (lncluding Private Common Passage Area), Situated at Ameenpur Village, Ameenpur Mandal and gram Panchayat, presently under R C' Puram and Patancheruvu of circle of GHMC, Sanga Reddy District, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL Counsel for the Respondents : SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.274O2 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistart 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 petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.p.No. 163 10 of 2019 and batch dated ll.OL.2O23 and also the recent Judgment of the Hon'trle Supreme Court in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrarl and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition. 3 Learned Assistant Government pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the t 2025 SCc Online SC 74O SI(,J w-P.No.27402 of 2O25 submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. lle submits that the petitioner has not submitted thLe document before the respondents and if he submits the document, they have to consider the same subject to compliance of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 ar--1d the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

4. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No. 1b310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 1 1.01.2023 is as under:

13. TL.e power of the registering authority to rcfuse registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enrrmeraLed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 19,20,21, 22-A. 34, 35 and rute 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are existrng in respect of any such document presentecl for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are cnumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a clocrrment on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which thc impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ I')etitions are passed is t-rat the link document shown in the respectivc documents is a validated and an unregistered document By Iooking into a validity of the tink document, the registering authoritl' is indirectll' verifvrng $hether the executants of the respective documents are having valid title or not to execute the documents in question As hetd in the aboge reterred judgment in the case of Dr. Yadla Ramesh Naidu (l supra), the registering authorit! is not entitled to go into thc title of thc parties to the document. It is a settled la\\' that the vcndee under a dc,cument will not get a better title than his vcndor and in : I w.r.*".zzaoz ol if;irs case if vendor is not having a valid title ovcr thetproperty which is the subject matter 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 eflect on the property which 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 enti ed 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 authorrties are not entitlcd to refuse registration of a document on the ground that the [nk document referred to in the respective document is a validated document or to refuse registration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.0i.2008, issued by the Commissioner and 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 receivc the returncd documents and to process the same subject to the condition o[ thc said documents complying with the provisions of the Registrarion Act, lgog and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 5 In K. Gopi's case (supra 1), the Hon,ble Supreme Court held as under: "The registering officer 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 tand in respect of which he has no ti e, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the documcnt lt all the 4 SI(,J w.P.No.27402 of 2O25 -I procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp dutv as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the schemc o[the 1908 Act, it is not the functior) olthe Sub Registrar ,)r Registcring Authority to ascertain u'hether the vendor has title tr thc property whrch he is seeking to transler. Oncc the registering authority is satished that the partics to the (locument are present brrfore 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 transferring only those rights, if an1,,, that the e:(ecutant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or intercst in the property, the registered document cannot eflect anl Lran sfer 6 In view of the order passed in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and b.atch dated ll.Ol.2023 and also the Judgment of the Hontrle 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 ancL register the sale deed presented by the petitioner irr respect of the subject plot without relerence to the intiniation of Refusal Order, dated 12.O8.2O25 of the pendin,q Document No.P.678/2025 and subject to condition of the said document complying with the provisions ()f the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indial Stamp Act, 1899. There sha,ll be no order as to costs. J 5

7. Miscellaneous petitions, writ petition, shaJl stand closed. SK.J W.p.No.27402 oJ 2O2S if any pending in this //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGIST ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secreta ry, Stamps and Registration, Se tariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad The Commissio ner and lnspector General Stamps and Registration Department, M J. Market, Hyderabad The Diskict Collector, Sangaiedd y, District Sangareddy,TS The Sub-Regis trar Sub- Registra r Office, Patancheru (RO), Sangaredd Y,TS wo CCs to GP FO R REVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana at T Hyderabad. [OUrl One CC to SRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL, Advocare [OPUC] Two CD Copies b To 2 3 4 5

6. 7. S a HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 210912025 ORDER WP.No.27402 ot 2025 /:' ./ ,. r') ''.--:_ 2 2 SEP z$fi D1. rrl:I -t/ DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. 37 ,T \t)