WP/35029/2026 of Sri Kassireddy Venkateshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 15 October 2026

ORDER:

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2, This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to register and release the Sale Deed uide pending Document P.No.133/2025 dated 20.O8.2026 by issuing Intimation of Refusal No.3 of 2025 dated 18.O9.2025 in respect of Plot bearing No.31, admeasuring 267 sq. ya_rds in Sy.Nos.31 and 32 (Parts), situated at Jilleiguda village, Balapur !-

Revenue Mandal, under Meerpet Municipal Corporation, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Heald Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondenl-s.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petiticner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, having succeeded the same through a validated sale deed vide File No.79O9 I ARl2022 dated 02.06.2022.1r is further submitted that the petitioner have approached respondent No 3 for registration of the Sale Deed. However, the document was initially kept pending uide document P.No.133/2025 dated 20 .Oa.2O25 , respondent No.3 has refused to register the sale deed. which is wholly unsustainable. It is further submitted that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No 163 10 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and also recent Judgment of the Horrble Supreme Court in K.Gopi a. The Sub-Reglstrarr and requested to pass similar order in this Writ Petition also. '2oil5 SCC Online SC 740

t-)-

5. Learned Government Pieader appearing for the respondents had not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

6. A perusal of the impugned refusa-l order dated 18.09.2025, discloses that the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner was refused on the following reasons: In terms of C&lG R&S instructions in Cir.No. 13450 /2OO7 daLed.2l.O7 .2008 EC particulars are verified arld also ascertained the link document details.

l. The Party has produced a copy of Notarized Agreement of Sale, dated: 03-03-1986 as link document and the sard Agreement of Sale was not registered, which is compulsorily registerable document under Section t7 of Registration Act.

2. Through the C & IG mail, dated:02-0 i-2008 it is clarified that a va-lidated document cannot be accepted as a validly registered document.

3. On calling for Certifred copy of document No.2488/ 1989 from the Sub Registrar, Hayathnagar through a letter No.349 /2025, dated: 16-09-2025 the detarls in the pending document not ta_Ilied with that of the details in the certified copy furnished by the Sub Registrar, Hayathnagar.

4. Thus, the authenLrcity of the document is highly suspicious. The vendor is not able to state what was he doing. He was not able to declare that he has executed the sale deed. It appears that he is not a genuine executant/vendor. The undersigned is not satisfied with the credentials of the vendor as he was not able to state the contents of the sa.le deed a-nd d.so previous mode of acquisition of property. The identity of the Vendor is not proved to the satisfactron of the undersigned and the authenticity of the Link documents is not proved to be genuine. Hence tl.is document rs refused registration Under Section 32, 34 arld 82 of Registration Act 1908 read with Registration Rule

58. -

7. In this context, it is to extract the relevant portjon of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.O1.2023' which is as under 1il. The power o[ the registering authority to refuse registration is on1y, if aly of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and tht: Rules nrade thereunder in particular Sections 19 , 20, 21 , 22-A, 34, 35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Reglstratir)n Act, 1908, ale existing in respect of any such document presented for t:re registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908' the regrstering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a document on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the rmpugrred refusal orders rn a-ll these batch of Wdt Petitions are passed is that t-he link rlocument show.rr in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking into a validity of the link ,locument, the registering authority is indirectly verifyng whether the executants of the respective documents are having va-lid title or not to execute the documents in quesLion. 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 seltled law that the vendee under a document will not get a better title thart his vendor and in case if vendor is not having a vaiid t-itle over the property which is the subject matter of a particula; document. the vendee under the said document does not get arly title over such property arrd mere registration of such docurnent ur1l not have al 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 Regstration, the registenng 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 conrpulsorily registerable document cannot be accepted ald such a ground is not available to the registering authonties to refuse regstralion of a documenr on that ground.

19. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold that the respondent registering authorlties 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 02.0 1.2008, issued by the CorrLmissioner

---

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 registenng authorities to receive the returned documents and to process the same subject to the conditron of the sard documents complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the lndian Stamp Act, 1899. In K, Gopt's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The registenng ofhcer is not concemed 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 a.ll the procedural complialces 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-Regist.rar or Registering Au *rority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registenng authorlty is satished that the parties to the document are present before him ald 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 ally, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.

9. In view of the order in W.P.No.1631O of 2019 and batch dated 1 1.O1.2023; W.A.No.715 of 2009 as well as the Judgment of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in K. Gopi,s case (1 supra) and in terms thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive, register and release the document bearing P.No.133/2025 dated 20.O8.2026 presented by the petitioner in respect of the subject property, without -

reference to the Intrmation of Refusal No. 3 of 2025 dated 18 .O9 .2025 , subj ect to the condition that the said document complies with the provisions of the Regrstration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.V.O. NARSI BABU ASSISTANT REGI'TRAR SEcTION Mrc,^ To, fu.

1. The Principal Secretary, Stamps Registration, Secretariat' Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The Sub- Regrstrar, L B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

4. One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

5. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BSR TKS

HIGH COURT DATED: 1511012026

ORDER

WP.No.35029 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS CC TODAY fi 1H E srA rAr 16 0[T zffi z * t) q'- r' -..^. - -.-,rl ii. (e \b \tL,