Chenna Reddy Seetha Ramaiah v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of firlandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.6 in refusing the registration and documentation and passed the refusal order through vide No. 3 of 2025, dated 10.07.2025 on the purchased plot of the Petitioner to an extent of 111 Sq. Yards in Plot No.97, in Survey Nos.29, 35 and 36, which is situated at Ran1it Paradise, Koheda Village, Abduallapurmet [r,4andal, Ranga Reddy District on the ground that the Petitioner is not having the Link Deed Document is illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 15,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and also violation of Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the refusal order through vide i'lo. 03 of 2025 dated 10.07 .2025 an,l consequently direct the Respondent No.( to release the regular Sale Deed on the purchased plot of the Petitioner to an € xtent of 1 '1 1 Sq. Yards in Plot No 97, n flurvey Nos.29, 35 and 36, which is sitLu ted at Ranjit Paradise, Koheda Village, Abduallapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy C i;trict. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C.ourt may be pleased to direct the Respordent No.6 to release the regular Sale Iteed on the purchased plot of the Petitioner to an extent of 111 Sq. Yards ir Plot No.97, in Survey Nos.29, 35 and 36, which is situated at Ranjit Parad se, Koheda Village, Abduallapurmet l/andal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.UDIT NARAYAN, REP. f OR SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SMT S.SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR STAMPS & REC,ISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.27392 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. D.Udit Narayal, learned Counsel representing learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps arld 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 20L9 and batch dated Il.Ol.2O23 and also the recent Judgment of the Honble 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 I 2025 SCC Ouliue SC 74O r- 2 SI(,J Vl.," tio.27392 of 2025 submis:jion made by the learned colllrsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has not submitted the document before the resporL, lcnts arrd if he submits the document, they have to con: iclr-r ilie sarne subject to compliance of the provisions of '. rc Registration Act, 1908 arrd the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

4. 'the relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 201.9 and batch date<l I 1.01.2O23 is as under: l3 The por,vcr oI the r-egistering authorit-v to reji s,'regrstratiotr is onl1, rl an\ o[ the grounds or objections that ,t. cnlrmcrate(l under tlre provisions of the Registration Act, I9O8. rrrcl the Rulcs mad(i thereunder in particular Sections 19,20,'21,2, A, 3'1, 35 and rule 58 of the Tclangana Rules under the Registratio r Act, 1908, are existlng in respect of any such document pres rrtecl for the regislratron. Except, the grounds or objections that .rie enumcrated under the provisions of the Registration. Act, 1908, he regtstering auth,rritres have no authoritv to refuse registration ol L (loctlment on an] oth(r ground. As already noted above, the groulr,i Drr $hich thc rmpugncd refusal orders in all these batch of WIi Petitions arc passed is that the link docLtment shown in the respe,' ir c documents rs a vali(lated and an unregistered document. B-\. ookir)g into a vatiditv f,l the link document, the registenng autho-r \ is indlrectl) verifl ing rvhethcr the executants of the respectivc (locumenls arc having t'alid title or not to execute the documents I r qucstion. As held in Ihe above referred .;udgment in the case of Dr. Yadla Ramesh Naicl r (1 supra), the registering authority is not entrtlj I to g() [rto the litle ,)f tlre parties to the document- It is a settled la$' llr,rt the vendee under a clocumcnt \\ill not get a better title than hrs r|ndot and rtr 3 *.r.*,.zrssz 6if;i! case if vendor is not having a valid title over the propcrt]. rvhich is the subject rnatter of a particular document, the \endec under the said document does not get an,\' title over such propert_v and mere regrstration of such document rvill not have an eflect on the propert] $ hich is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightly conceded bY the learned Government pleader for Stamps and Registration, the regrstering 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 compulsoril_v 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 tight 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 tink document referred to in the respective document is a validated document or to refuse registration of such document b_v placing reliance on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissroner and lnspector 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 returned documents and to process the same subject to the condition -of the sard documents complying \rith the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 alrd the lndian 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 hetd by thc cxecutant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide r,vhether the executant has any tille. Even if an executant exccutes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of rvhich he has no title, the reglstering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp dut!'as .-- *,.*".zr"ez 4if;i! $eil as registration charges/fee are paid. We ma,\ nore here that und,,'r t re scheme of thc 190E Act, it is not the funct on o[ the Sub Reslrstra r or Rcgistering Authorit_y to ascertain whr.tter tlre genclor h.rs ritl{' to the propert} r','hich he is seekirg to triu s[er. Once the registerrns allthoritT is satisfied that the parttes to tlr: (locltmcnt are pres,-'nt betbre irrm and the parties admit executiol rhereof before hirn, su bjacr to making procedural compliances as r ilrrat( d above tire clocument rnust be regrstered. The execution arld r,-gistration o[ a documert have the effect of transferring only thos.: rrghts, if any, that the exccutant possesses. [f the executant has rr( right, title, or lnterest ln the propertv, the registered document ciulnot effect anv trarl sle r

6. Ir. view of the order passed in U, p.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated ll.Ol.2023 and als,r the Judgment of the Honbie Supreme Court in K. Gopi,s case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned therein, th: Writ petition 1S disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive arLd register the sa_Ie deed presented by the petrtloner in respect of the subject plot wit rout reference to the Lettr:r in Lr.No. 143/2025, dated 1O.r17.2025 issued by the respondent No.6 and subject to condition of the said document complying with the prol,isions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Starnp Act, 1899. There sh a-11 be no order as to costs. 5

7. *.".*".zrse, q zs{ir" Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this rnrit petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' .P. PONNA KRISHNA TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3

4. 5 6 7 The Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department' Secretariat a..lio i"t','66"*iaiai nvo",auad, state of relansana The Commissioner, Stamps and Registration Department' Telangana State' Hyderabad. The lnspector General, Stamps and Registration Department' Telangana' Hyderabad The District Collector, Ranga Reddy' Ranga Reddy District' The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy' Ranga Reddy District' The Sub-Registrar, Pedda Amberpet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District' One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR' Advocate [OPUCI Tr,vn cCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGTSTRATION' High Court for the State oi f"rrngrnu at Hyderabad [OUT] I BSR GJP Two CD CoPies ,N,. I I I : l HIGH COURT DATED:1910912025 t ORDER WP.No.27392 of 2025 t\ I :_\\ i 4' 0[ ttl zflfi t C1 r i:1'' - ---a; DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1 \o