1. Sri Chintala Surender Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

1. Sri ChintalaSurender Reddy and two others Appellant/Writ Petitioners And I . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Registration, and three others. JUDGMENT: Qter Hon'ble Justicc Gadi Proveen Kumar) Respondents. The present Appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated ll.ll.2025 passed by the leamed.single Judge in dismissing W.P.No.l6139 of 2025 refusing to register 3 sale deeds presented by the appellants for the purpose of registration.

2. The Writ Petitioners befbre the leamed Single Judge assailed the Refusal orders vide (i) Refusal order No.2 vide letter No.12312025 dated'

16.05.2025, (2) Refusal order No.3/2025 vide letter No'124/2025 dated

16.05.2025 and (3) Retusal order No.4/2025 vide letter No.12512025 ) I

2. dated 16.05.2025, with a consequential direction to res rondent No.4 to receive and register the three Sale Deeds in respect of tl t property bearing Ptot Nos.693 and694 in Sy.No.174 admeasuring 420 stl vards situated at Sai Surya Enclave,, Macha Bollaram, Alwal, Medchal-\'alkajgiri District (for short'the Schedule Property')

3. lt is the case of appellants/petitioners that on 05.0 .1997, Appellant No.3 purchased the schedule property from one Mogullir Kistamma and 7 others through their agent M/s.Ravi Shankar Real E,stati: under registered sale deed. Subsequently, on 15.05.2025 Appellant Nos. l and 2 purchased the schedule property lrom appellant No.3 for valuahl: consideration of Rs.39,54,000/- under three separate documents and arc r possession and enjoyment of the said property. In the month ol A r gust, 2017, one P.Maladri along with his henchmen tried to trespass irto the schedule property. Appellant No.3, on coming to know that rr r ltiple sale deeds were created on the sub.iect property, filed a complaint a gainst P.Maladri, Ch.Srinu, Ch.Srinivasa Babji, K.Ram Gopat Reddy. luthu Lakshmi, M.Meena and the sarre was registered as FIR No. 38 of 2017 of Cyberbabad, P.S. Alwal, and after completion of invcstil ation, the police filed charge sheet against the said encroachers for tlL, off'ences under Sections 416, 427, 447. 464, 468, 471,506 r/w 34 IP(' r :leting the name I ) ) of P.Maladri as his involvement in the matter of creation of false documents is not established and that he is an innocent buyer from accused Nos.2 and 3 viz., Sri Ch.Srinu and Sri Chilukuri Srinivas Babji, who are encroachers of the schedule property.

4. Upon coming to know of the fraud played, P.Maladri has entered into a settlement with the fraudsters Sri Chilukuri Srinivas Babji and after lodging of complaint by appellant No.3, agreed to take back the alleged sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- paid under the fabricated registered instrument and received a cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- out of Rs'21,00,000/-' and the said cheque was dishonoured. Then P.Maladri filed C.C.No.1517 of 2018 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal and gave up his rights over the schedule property.

5. Subsequently, P.Maladri filed O-S.No.427 of 20ll on the file of the lI Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kushaiguda against appellant No'3 and three other fraudsters, who are alleged to be vendors of P.Maladri, for perpetual injunction, and the said suit was dismissed on 30.12.2024' a

6. Appellant No.3 filed O.S.No.342 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Medchal-Malkajgiri against all fraudsters for cancellation of sale deed bearing Doc.No.845/20l7dated 03.02'2017 and other documents. In o.S.No.342 of 2018. In the said suit, all defendants except X 4 P.Maladri remained exparle. P.Maladri filed written stal( rent stating that his complicity in the matter of creation of sale deed is r ot established in the police investigation and that he filed the copy of cli Lrge sheet in CC No.940/2018 as document in the suit filed by appellant Nt ..i

7. The said P.Maladri is estopped from asserting or : aiming any title, right ofother interest of whatsoever in the schedule prol) ,fty, since he has given up his rights by entering into an affangement rr th his purported vendor Chilukuri Srinivas Raju having agreed to take -l c refund of sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- and having initiated lrgal process for dishonor ofcheque being part ofRs.21,00,000/-. Thus. it is the case ofthe appellants that the vendor of appellants is having unimpe z :hable right, title and interest over the schedule propefty and that appelli,r t No.3 is lree to deal with the property in her own right. Therefore, rggrieved by the Refusal Orders passed, the present Writ Petition has beer lled.

8. Learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the r raterial available on record, dismissed W.P.No.16l39 of 2025 holding tht t respondent No.4 rightly rejected the documents presented by the appcll Lnts as appellant No.3 has no right over the subject property in vierv rf the registered document No.845/2017 on the file of S.R.O., Balanap rr alleged to be executed by her in favour of one Ch.Srinu and also subsequent 5 I transactions. It was further held that unless the said documents are cancelled by the competent civil court and the suit filed by appellant No.3 for cancellation of the said document is finalized before the Principal District court, Medchal-Malkajgiri, appellant No.3 has no right to sell the subject propertY.

9. The learned Single Judge fuither held that mere filing of charge sheet against ch.Srinu and others in the criminal case cannot be taken as conclusive proof as the same is pending, and the same can be decided by thecompetentCivilCourtwhereappellanlNo.3hasfiledacivilsuitfor cancellation of the registered document, and if appettant No'3 obtains a favourable order in her favour in the suit, she has right to sell the subject property.

10. Challenging the said order of the leamed Single Judge' the present Appeal is filed.

11. Sri B.S. Prasad, leamed Senior Counsel representing IWs Pearl Law Associates appearing for the appellants contended that the order passed by the leamed Singte Judge is without appreciation of undisputed facts bome out of clinching evidence and that the learned Single Judge committed patent illegality in observing that the appellant No'3/petitioner No'3 has norighttosellthesubjectpropertytilldisposalofthesuitlrledbyherin i I I I I 6 O.S.No.342 of 2018, and such a finding on the civil ris rt, in exercise of Writ jurisdiction is unwarrante d.

12. It is further contended that the learned Single Jrr, ge misconstrued the factual aspects, which are explained in detail with rL cumentary proof as to the absolute right and title I 3. Leamed Senior Counsel further vehementlv co tended that the leamed Single Judge ought to have appreciated that ',hen proper and necessary parties were made in the civil suit in resl; ct of the cause espoused in the civil suit evident from the pleadings r I the plaint and stated that Civil Court's jurisdiction was invoked by a rpellant No.3 to remove the cloud on the valuable rights of appellant l,l r.3, it can never mean to say in law that appellant No.3 should wait for th: outcome of the civil suit to enable or to deal with her own property, anc such basic facts are necessary for consideration

14. Leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the 11 pellants further contended that the purchaser of the property of appellar No.3 is neither necessary nor proper party to the Writ Petition as the caus i espoused in the Writ Petition is not adversarial as between appella I No.3 and the fraudsters including the last purchaser p.Matadri in . re tight of the indisputable lacts bome out of the records where the ,olice have laid 7 l charge sheet against the fraudsters and the said P.Maladri has entered into compromise with the vendor fraudsters and received the sale consideration andwhenachequewasdishonoured,institutedacomplaintunderthe provisions of the Negotiable Instructions Act'

15. In support of these contentions that the registering officer is not concemed with the title held by the executant and he has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title' leamed Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision tn K'GopiVs' Sub-Regislrar and otherst .

16. Therefore, leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the order passed by the leamed Single Judge is liable to be set aside by allowing the Writ Petition directing respondent No'4 to register the 3 sale deeds as prayed for'

17. On the other hand, Sri Muratidhar Reddy Katram' learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondents contended that the documents presented by the appellants were kept for scrutiny and assigned document numbers' and upon examination of the said documents, it was found that appellant No.3 has already sold the subject propefty to one Ch'Srinu vide Doc'No '84512011 ' I 2025 SCC OnLine s740 8 who in tum sold the subject propefty to one K.Ram Gopr and Ch.Srinivas Babji vide loc.Nos. l535l20l7 and 1579/2017 respecti,., ly, and the said persons sold the subject propefty to P.Maladri vide Dc:.Nos.2648/2017 and 3083/20 17, thereby the subject property is involre I in double and triple registrations. Therefore, the appellants were inforr red of their right to prefer appeal before the District Registrar as per li :ction 72 of the Registration Act. 1908 and without exhausting such ri11; t, the appellants have filed the Writ Petition.

18. Learned Gor"crrment Pleader for Stamps and R: listration further contended that the order passed by respondent No.4 rs well within his rights to refuse registration of the sale deeds and there a'r no merits in the Appeal.

19. In supporl of his contentions, leamed Governrr :nt Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Suprerr Coufi in Thotu Gangu Lcrmi tnd others Vs. Government of Arulh, a Prodesh and olhers2, wherein it was held that it is only when a sale cle e J is cancelled by a competent Court that the cancellation deed can be regi:;t:red and that too after notice to the concemed parties. '2012(t) ALD 90 / - 9 20 Wehavegivenoureamestconsiderationtothecontentionsraised, and perused the record. 21 . The record speaks that P.Maladri filed o.S.No.427 of 2017 against the vendor of appellant Nos.l and 2 i.e. appettant No'3 and three other fraudsters seeking perpetuat injunction in respect of the schedule property' wherein the leamed civil court held that a cloud persist over the plaintiff s (P.Maladri)titleandhehasfailedtoestablishhispossessionand enjoyment over the schedule propefty as on the date of filing of thc suit and the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff is to file a comprehensive suit seeking declaration, possession and injunction'

22.TheleamedCivilCour.tfurtherheldthattheappellantNo.3herein lrted certihed copies of rectification deeds vide Doc.Nos.2039l20l'7 and

264812017. Thereby, leamed Civil Court observed that the plaintiff (P.Maladri) approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. The leamed Civil Court finally held that "l am firmly of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties as on the date of filingofthesuit.Consequently,heisnotentitledtodiscretionaryreliefof injunction as prayed for. Notably, the plaintiff himself admitting during cross-examination that he did not fite any document to demonstrate his ^_a l0 possession of the suit schedule properties, in the absence : 'such proof, the issue of interference by the defendants does not arise". l-l erefore, leamed Civit Court dismissed the suit filed by P.Maladri.

23. The appellant No.3 instituted suit O.S.No.342 ol 018 against the fraudsters as well as P.Maladri (Plaintiff in O.S.No.427 I f 2Ol7) seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 03.02-2017 bearing I) rc.No.845/2017, wherein the said P.Maladri filed written statement alc t g u,ith certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.940 of 2008 filed against t re fraudsters.

24. It is not in dispute that criminal proceedings wer'< initiated on the complaint of appellant No.3 atteging fabrication ol' documents and fraudulent transactions in respect of the schedule proper y, and that after investigation a charge sheet came to be hled against the a leged fraudsters. However, it is well settled that criminal proceedingr; and civil rights operate in distinct spheres. The filing of a charge s.r )et can, at best, indicate the existence of a prima lacie case for the ptu :ose of criminal prosecution, but it neither determines nor extinguishes : vil rights or title to immovable property, which can be adjudicated only by a competent Civil Court.

25. Equally settled is the legal position that the mere p ndency of a civil suit, in the absence of any interim order of injun: ion or statutory 7 / 1i prohibition restraining alienation, does not create a bar either on the execution or on the registration of a document. In the present case, no injunction or prohibitory order has been placed on record restraining appellant No.3 tiom dealing with the schedule property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the leamed Single Judge that appellant No'3 has no right to alienate the property till the disposal of O.S.No.342 of 2018 amounts to an adjudication of civil rights, which is impermissible in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

26. The reliance placed by the learned Govemment Pleader on the judgment of the l{on'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga laxnu(Supra)is misconceived. l'he said decision deals with the registration of unilateral deeds of cancellation and the circumstances under which such cancellation deeds may be registered. The issue in the present case is not the registration of a cancellation deed, but the refusal to register fresh sale deeds presented lor registration. Hence, the ratio laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi has no application to the facts of the present case'

27. On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in K.Gopi (supra) is exactly on similar circumstances wherein the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed, which was reiected in the writ Petition on the ground that the he t2 has not impleaded the legai heirs, since petitioner in the su d case based his title on unregistered will. The Hon'ble Apex court hell rhat in the event of any doubt regarding title, the registering authority. i empowered to retum the document under the provisions of the Registrati, ,n Act, 190g. In the said case, the petitioner was granted liberty to work o r remedies under law. In the said decision, the Hon,ble Supreme Couft ronsidered Rule 55A of the Registration Rules. which reads asunder: "6. 55A (il The registering fficer before v,hom a documen. ,elating to immovable properly is prc.sented Jbr re,<i.rtration, shall not r gisf cr the same, unless the presentant produt:e.r lhe pret,ious origirc, deetl by u'hich the executanl acquired righl over the subject proltt t 1, arul an Encumbrance ()ertificate pertaining lo the property ohtainei rithin ten days .from the date of presentation; Provided that in case an encuntbrance as to mortgtt, e, ortlers on otlachment oJ propertjt, sale ogr.r:cment or.lease ogree,t. )nt exists over lhe property, the registering o/Jicer shall not rcS.i ter .such documenl dthe time limil .fbr .liting oJ.suit is not lap.setl or Nt, )bjection Cerli,ficute is not granted bv lhe approyiotc ituthorily rtr ru,s npi of the attachment is nol done, as the case nruy be,. provided furt.t r that in cose lhe previrnts original deetl is not availahle as the pro1,t.ty being an anceslrol one, the regislering o;fficer shalt nol regii ,er .such the presenlanl praduce any reyerll\ recortl evidencing the exeLutant,s right ot,er lha suhject proper\t sttt) ($ ptllla copy issued by Ret,enue Departrnent or tox reccipl; document. unle.s.s 3 / l3 Provided also thal if the previous original deed is lost, the registering olficer shall rcgister such documenl only on production of non-lraceable Certificate issued by the Police department along with the advertisement published in the local Newspaper as to the notice of loss tl the previous original deed; l'rovided also that production of the previous original deed shall.not be necessary where the Government or a Statutory body is the execulant of the document or for such class of documents as may be notified by lhe Inspeckr Generol of Registration, from time to time (i, l'he ragisrering ofrcer, on being satisfied thot the description of the proper1' contained in lhe tlocument presented for registralion conforms with the descriplion of the property found in the previous orryinaL dced produced by the presentant as provided under this rule. he shall inscribe lhe word'verified' on a conspicuous porlion of the Jirst page of such title deed and ffix his signature with date and thereafter causc stanning of page containing such inscription tts a reference documenl (iii) In case where revenue records are produced under lhis rule. lhe sume shull be scanned as the main document and where NonTraceahle Certifcata und the advertisement published in the local Newspaper are suhmitted by the presentant, the same shall be scanned as refe re nt e doc um an I s.. Provided that such verification and scanning of lhe previous original deed or record in the manner provided under this rule, shall not be construed to he un act of ascertaining the validity ol lhe documenl presented for registration and also lhe same shall not absolve or deprive any person.front lhe Provisions contained in Parts XIV and XV of rhe Registration Act, I 908 (Central Act XVI of I908)". X l4 Rule 55-A rnandates th.u 'nhen a documenl re'( tmg to dn immovable properrt- is presented fot' registration beJbrt the Officer concerned, the same shall nol be registered unle.vs th: prescntanl produces lhe previous original deed by wltich lhe erectil tt ocquired the right over the suhject property... The Apex Court also referred to Sections 22-A and 22-E incorporated by the State of Tamil Nadu in the 1908. The said provisions s .ates as under: "8. ... 22-A Refusal to register certain documenls - Notwith:it |ding anything contained in thi.s Act, the regislering oJficer sha!l rc.fusa lo rt: i ;ler any oJ'the fo I low i ng docume nt s nom e Iy. - (1) instrument relating to the transfer of immovable propertic u'tt_y oJ'sale, ')] gift, mortgage, exchanEie or lease; (i) belonging to the Stote Government or the local author j) or Chennai Metropolitan Developmenl Autfutrily established under Setr on 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Town ancl Country Planning Act, 197 I ; (ii) belonging lo, ot' given or endovted.[or the purp<tse ,t, uny religious institution to u,hich the T'amil Nadu R.eligious and Charitul I' Endowmenls Acr. 1959 is applit'uble.. (iii) donated ./br llhoodun Yagna ond vc.sted the Tr.ut I Nudu State Bhoodan Yagrut Board established under Section 3 of trt, l'umil Nudu Bhoodcn Yagna Act, 1958; or (n) of llakfs v,hich are tutder the superinlendence o/ the T,t Boord established under the Wakf Act, 1995; unless a sanctit t il lt'adu Ilalcf in lltis regard issued by the competent authority as proNided under the relev,t t Act or in the absence of any such authorily, an authority so attthorised bl tl' oJ l3 Civil Appeal l\to.395.1 of 2025 Oovernnrcnt .fitr t\ produced before lhe regislering oticer; t State Page 7 s plu'po.se, is l5 (2) instrument relating to the transfer oJ ownership of lands converted as house sites without the permis.sion for development of such land from planning authority concerned; provided that the house sites wilhout such permission may be registered iJ it is shown thal lhe same house site has been previously registered as house sile 22-t). Refisal to register fbrged documenls and other documents prohibited by law- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering o.fficer shall refu.;e to register the follou,ing documents, namely;- (l) forged document; (2) document relaling to transaclion. t'hich is prohibited by any Central Act or State Act Jbr the time being in.litrce: (3) document relating lo translbr of imrnovable property by way of sale, gift, lease or olherwise, which i.s attached permanently or prttvisionally by a competent authori\) under an.)' Central .4ct or State Act for the time being in .force or any Courl or '[ribunul. (4) any other document as the State Government may, by noliJication, spec{y". The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope and object of Rule 55-A, has held that the registering otficer is entitled to satisfy himsetf as to the production of docunrcnts evidencing the manner in which the ) executant claims right over the subject property, and that non-production of such documents may constitute a valid ground for refusal. At the same time, the Supreme court has unequivocally clarified that such scrutiny is limited to procedural compliance and does not vest the registering authority with any power to adjudicate upon disputed questions of title or =t 16 to examine the validity of prior or subsequent )onveyances. The registering officer cannot assume the role ofa civiI cour by weighing rival claims or by deciding whether the executant urtimatelv t lssesses a valid or superior title. f-) {

28. In the present case, appellant No.3 has product,r thc original title deed under which she craims right over the schedure pr(,r erty. tt is also not in dispute that she has initiated criminal proceedings rLI eging fabrication and fraudulent execution of subsequent document; culminating in registration of an FIR and hling of a chargc sheer, and has further approached the competent civ, Court by instituting o r .No.342 0f 20lg seeking cancellation of the disputed sale deed. Signifirt ntly, the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the subsequent purchast r p. Maradri, in O.S.No.427 of 2017, stood dismissed, the Civil Courl I rving lound that the plaintiff failed to estabrish possession or enlitlen-r rt [o injunctive relief.

29. In such clrcumstances, the registering authority :ould not have refused registration solely on the ground ofpendency ol.r; vil proceedings, particularly when Appellant no.3 hersell- frlc r the suit for cancellation of the sare deeds. Further, in the absence r.r rny restraint or 11 prohibitory order, the registering authority ought not to have refused registration ofthe subject sale deeds' 30. The registration of the subject sale deeds' if effected' shall not amount to be a declaration or conhrmation of title' but only operate to convey such right, title or interest' if any' as appellant No'3 may ultimately be held to Possess 31' Therefore, this Court deems it proper to set aside the order passed by the leamed Single Judge and allow the Appeal directing the ofhcial respondents to register the subject saie deeds' The registration is subject to the final outcome of the cancellation of sale deeds bide O'S No' 342 of

32. Subject to above observations' W'A'No'1447 of 2025 is allowed' Miscellaneous applications pending' if any shall stand closed' There shall be no order as to costs' SD/.t.NAGALAKSHMI JOINT REGIST a. //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, I 2 J 4 5 The Principal Secretary Department of Revenue Stamps & Reqistration State +liil;HJDr"--d. n". Ailo",ir,liili;"s';; Secretariat building Hvderabad' The Commissioner and lnspector General' Registration and Stamps ffi ;'i#i"ili;;;r,"N rr'r'Ir<"i L " Bas h Hvd e rabad 5000e5' The District Registrar, Districl Re^gistrar Office Near Bus Stand Medchal lieoJnai Malkaj-giri District 50 l 401 TheJointSubRegistrar,subRegistrarofficeVallabhnagarPatigadda BegumPet HYderabad One CC to Mis' PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES' Advocate IOPUCI I l i I l I 6 7 lwo CQlto cP FOR STAMPS AND REGTSTRATTON , tigh Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies PMK BS 4v / HIGH COURT DATED:29 t12\ZO2S i I ( L ,3 r;@ .:r A z\ L i Ji\ll 2[?i O JUDGEMENT WA.No.144T of 2O2S t [;t', rj r:-J, * ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AS WTHOUT COSTS \rB\ L