Telangana High Court
Basupally Surender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 26 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.15976 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondents. With their consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner questioning the impugned endorsement No.B/938/ 2025 dated 27.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.3, which is for refusing to register and release the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the agriculture land to an extent of Ac.1.0100 guntas in Sy.Nos.1474/21/EE/1/2, 1474/21/E/3/2, 1474/21/E/3/1/2, 1474/21/E/3/1/1/2, 1474/21/E/2 situated at Dhobipet Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Rangareddy District, on the ground that a civil suit is pending vide O.S.No.257 of 2020, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella at Ranga Reddy District.
::2::
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that One Utterpally Pentaiah has filed O.S.No.257 of 2020 against one Purra Narayana Rao, who is the vendor of the petitioner's vendor for suit schedule property in Sy.No.1474/21/E, admeasuring Ac.1.13 guntas situated at Dhobipet Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and wherein, an ex-parte order dated 03.07.2022 has been passed by the trial Court. Subsequently, the defendant therein has filed I.A.No.1918/2023 in O.S.No.257 of 2020 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order dated 03.07.2023 and the same was allowed by the trial Court on 23.01.2025 and the suit in O.S.257 of 2020 is still pending for adjudication.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that mere pendency of the suit cannot be the ground to refuse the registration of the sale deed and also without any order from the trial Court, where the civil suit is pending, the respondents are not authorized to stop the registration of the petitioner's Sale Deed and the same is contrary to the ::3::
Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Gopi Vs Sub Registrar & Ors. 1
5. In K.Gopi's case (supra), 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 land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub- Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before 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 any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits in view of the above mentioned K.Gopi's case (supra), requested this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 27.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 and direct the respondent authorities to 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 ::4::
receive, register and release the Sale Deed submitted by the petitioner with regard to the subject property.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as there is no order from the trial Court in the suit O.S.No.257 of 2020 pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella at Ranga Reddy District, requested this Court to pass appropriate orders.
8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on both the sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Standing Order i.e. S.O.219(b) of the Registration and Stamps Department, the respondent authorities cannot stop the registration of the subject property.
9. Standing Order No.219(b) of the Registration and Stamps Department is reads as follows:
"S.O.219.(b) If a Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if he still choses to alienate it, it is he who contravenes the orders of the Court and not the Registering Officer. If, on the other hand, the Court gives a direction to the Registering officer/ Registration Department, the officer / Department is estopped from going ahead with the registration."
::5::
10. In view of the above circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Endorsement No.B/938/2025 dated 27.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 and with a direction to the respondent No.3 to register and release the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner in respect of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.0100 guntas in Sy.Nos.1474/21/EE/1/2, 1474/21/E/3/2, 1474/21/E/3/1 /2, 1474/21/E/3/1/1/2, 1474/21/E/2 situated at Dhobipet Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Rangareddy District, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Act, 1908 as well as the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It will be open to the Registering Authority to refuse the documents presented before him, if he has any objection, by duly assigning reasons in support of such decision and communicate the said decision to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case as to the entitlement of the petitioner to get the subject documents registered. There shall be no order as to costs.
::6::
11. It is made clear that mere registration of the document does not confer title on the subject property and it is also made clear that this order would not have any bearing on all those matters where title/rights of the parties are pending before the authorities either in revision/appeals for adjudication and in any other case this order also does not preclude the parties in asserting their rights before a competent Court of law. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 26.06.2025 spk