Telangana High Court
Smt. Nafisa Taher Jiddawala vs State Of Telangana on 10 April, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.28197 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and perused the
entire material on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order
passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch
dated 11.01.2023 and also the recent Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrar 1 and requested
to pass similar order in this writ petition.
3 Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and
Registration has not disputed the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. The relevant portion of the order
in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as
under:
13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is
only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made thereunder
in particular Sections 19, 20, 21, 22-A, 34, 35 and rule 58 of the
Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are existing in respect
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740
of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds
or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse
registration of a document on any other ground. As already noted above,
the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of
Writ Petitions are passed is that the link document shown in the
respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By
looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authority is
indirectly verifying whether the executants of the respective documents
are having valid title or not to execute the documents in question. As held
in the above referred judgment in the case of Dr. Yadla Ramesh Naidu (1
supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go into the title of the
parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendee under a
document will not get a better title than his vendor and in case if vendor is
not having a valid title over the property 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 effect 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 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 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 authorities are not entitled to refuse
registration of a document on the ground that the link document referred
to in the respective document is a validated document or to refuse
registration of such document by placing reliance on endorsement,
dated 02.01.2008, 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 receive the
returned documents and to process the same subject to the condition of
the said documents complying with the provisions of the Registration Act,
1908 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 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. In view of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch
dated 11.01.2023 and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in K. Gopi's case (supra 1) and for the reasons mentioned
therein, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned
order of Refusal No.20/2024 dated 06.07.2024 passed by the
respondent No.4 and the order in Appeal No.4 of 2024
dated 27.08.2024 in File No.CC/5136/2024 passed by the
respondent No.3 and the respondent authorities are directed to
receive the returned documents and process the same subject to
the condition of the said documents complying with the provisions
of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date: 10.04.2025.
sj
