Basupally Surender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 4292 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4292 Tel
Judgement Date : 26 June, 2025

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

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.