Telangana High Court
Sri. P.V.D. Shiva Rama Krishna vs The State Of Telangana on 4 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.26513 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Smt S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing
for the respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is
disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
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 recent Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi Vs The Sub-
Registrar1 and requested to pass similar order in this writ
petition.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps
and Registration has not disputed the submission made by
the learned counsel for the petitioners.
12025 SCC OnLine SC 740
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 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 disposed of
directing the respondent authorities to register the sale
deed dated 13.08.2025 vide P.No.43/2025 presented by the
petitioners in respect of the subject property, without
reference to the refusal order dated 19.08.2025, subject to
condition of the said document complying with the
provisions under 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.
____________________
JUSTICEK.SARATH
Date: 28.08.2025
szt/spk
