Allowed

Sri Chintala Surender Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC29 Dec 2025WA/1447/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Writ Appeal, holding that the Sub-Registrar erred in refusing to register sale deeds merely because a prior sale deed was challenged in a pending civil suit. The Court held that the registering authority lacks adjudicatory power to decide title disputes and cannot refuse registration based on the pendency of civil proceedings absent a prohibitory order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed. Respondents directed to register the subject sale deeds subject to the final outcome of O.S. No. 342 of 2018.

Sri Chintala Surender Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I34e1 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1447 OF 202s

¶10

Writ Appeal under clause^'15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the order daled 1111112025 in W P No. 16139 of 2025 on the file^of the High^Court.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Sri Chintala Surender Reddy, S/o Late Chintala Chandra^{ReddyAged about} 51 vears Occ: Busines R/o H No 413/8 Hanuman Tekdi Macha Bollaram Alwal, Medehal-Malkjgiri District,5o0010

¶13

Smt Chintala Swpna Reddy, W/o. Chintala Surender^{Reddy Aged about44} vears Occ: House Wife RJo H No^{413/8 Hanuman TekdiMachaBollaram} Alwal, MedchalMalkjgiri District 500010

¶14

Smt Sushila S Kamath, Wo. Late V S^Kamath Aged about 89 Years Occ: House Wife Rl/o H No 1O33219h313442 Atsh Glory Street No 10 East Marredpally, Secunderabad 500026.

¶15

...APPELLANTS

¶16

AND

¶17

The State of Telangana, Represented by^its Principal Secretary^Department of Revenue Stamps and Registration Dr^{.B. R.} Ambedkar^Telangana Secretariat building Hyderabad.

¶18

Commissioner and lnspector General, Registration^{and Stamps Department} Mozamjahi Market, Jam Bagh, Hyderabad 500095.

¶19

The District Registrar, District Registrar Office Near^{BusStand Medchal} MedchalMalkajgiri District 501 401

¶20

The Joint Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office^{Val labhnagar Patigadda} Begumpet Hyderabad

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir rumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cot r may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to register the Sale Deeds vide pe lding document Nos. 1) 2812025, 2) 2912025 and 3012025 dated 15.05.2025.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI B.S PRASAD SENIOR COt NSEL FOR M/S.PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS AND RE(; STRATION

¶26

The Court made the following: JUDGEMENT

¶27

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD.

¶29

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^{MOUSHUMIBHATTACHARYA} AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE^{GADIPRAVEENKUMAR}

¶30

WRIT APPEAL No.l447 of 2025

¶31

Da te of Judem ent 2-1-LZ-ZOZS

¶32

Between:

¶33

Sri ChintalaSurender Reddy and^twoothers

¶34

Appellant/Writ Petitioners

¶35

And

¶36

I . The State of Telangana,

¶37

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

¶38

Department of Revenue^{and Registration,} and three others.

¶39

Respondents.

¶40

JUDGMENT: Qter Hon'ble^{Justicc Gadi Proveen Kumar)}

¶41

The present Appeal is^{filedby the appellants being aggrievedby the} order dated ll.ll.2025^{passedby the leamed.single Judgein dismissing} W.P.No.l6139 of^{2025refusingto register 3 sale deedspresented by the} appellants for the^{purpose of registration.}

¶42

The Writ Petitioners^{befbre the leamedSingle Judge assailed the} Refusal orders^{vide (i) Refusal order No.2 vide letter No.12312025dated'} 16.05.2025, (2) Refusal order^{No.3/2025 videletter No'124/2025dated} 16.05.2025 and (3) Retusal^{order No.4/2025vide letterNo.12512025} ) I

¶43

¶44

dated 16.05.2025, with a consequential direction to res rondent No.4 to receive and register the three Sale Deeds in respect of tl t property bearing Ptot Nos.693 and694 in Sy.No.174 admeasuring 420 stl vards situated at Sai Surya Enclave,, Macha Bollaram, Alwal, Medchal-'alkajgiri District (for short'the Schedule Property')

¶45

lt is the case of appellants/petitioners that on 05.0 .1997, Appellant No.3 purchased the schedule property from one Mogullir Kistamma and 7 others through their agent M/s.Ravi Shankar Real E,stati: under registered sale deed. Subsequently, on 15.05.2025 Appellant Nos. l and 2 purchased the schedule property lrom appellant No.3 for valuahl: consideration of Rs.39,54,000/- under three separate documents and arc r possession and enjoyment of the said property. In the month ol A r gust, 2017, one P.Maladri along with his henchmen tried to trespass irto the schedule property. Appellant No.3, on coming to know that rr r ltiple sale deeds were created on the sub.iect property, filed a complaint a gainst P.Maladri, Ch.Srinu, Ch.Srinivasa Babji, K.Ram Gopat Reddy. luthu Lakshmi, M.Meena and the sarre was registered as FIR No. 38 of 2017 of Cyberbabad, P.S. Alwal, and after completion of invcstil ation, the police filed charge sheet against the said encroachers for tlL, off'ences under Sections 416, 427, 447. 464, 468, 471,506 r/w 34 IP(' r :leting the name

¶46

¶47

)

¶48

) of P.Maladri as his involvement in the matter of creation of false documents is not established and that he^is an^{innocentbuyer fromaccused} Nos.2 and 3 viz., Sri Ch.Srinu and Sri Chilukuri Srinivas^{Babji, who are} encroachers of the schedule^property.

¶49

Upon coming to know of^{the fraud played,P.Maladrihas entered} into a settlement with the fraudsters Sri^{Chilukuri SrinivasBabji and after} lodging of complaint by appellant^{No.3,agreed to take backthe alleged} sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/-^{paid underthe fabricatedregistered} instrument and received a cheque^{for Rs.8,00,000/-out of Rs'21,00,000/-'} and the said cheque was dishonoured.^{Then P.Maladri filed C.C.No.1517} of 2018 on the file of the XXI^{MetropolitanMagistrateat Medchal and} gave up his rights over the schedule^property.

¶50

Subsequently, P.Maladri^{filedO-S.No.427of 20ll on the file of the} lI Additional Junior Civil Judge^{at Kushaiguda against appellantNo'3 and} three other fraudsters,^{who are allegedto be vendors of P.Maladri,for} perpetual injunction, and the^{said suit was dismissed on 30.12.2024'}

¶51

¶52

Appellant No.3 filed O.S.No.342^{of 2018 on the file of the Principal} District Judge at Medchal-Malkajgiri^{against all fraudsters for cancellation} of sale deed bearing^{Doc.No.845/20l7dated 03.02'2017 and other} documents. In o.S.No.342^{of 2018. In the saidsuit, all defendants except}

¶53

¶54

¶55

P.Maladri remained exparle. P.Maladri filed written stal( rent^statingthat his complicity in the matter of creation of sale deed^{is r ot establishedin} the police investigation and that he filed the copy of cli^{Lrge sheet in CC} No.940/2018 as document in the suit filed by appellant Nt^..i

¶56

The said P.Maladri is estopped from asserting or : aiming any title, right ofother interest of whatsoever in the schedule prol)^,fty, since he has given up his rights by entering into an affangement rr th his purported vendor Chilukuri Srinivas Raju having agreed to take -l c refund of sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- and having initiated lrgal process for dishonor ofcheque being part ofRs.21,00,000/-. Thus. it is the case ofthe appellants that the vendor of appellants is having unimpe z :hable right, title and interest over the schedule propefty and that appelli,r t No.3 is lree to deal with the property in her own right. Therefore, rggrieved by the Refusal Orders passed, the present Writ Petition has beer lled.

¶57

Learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the r raterial available on record, dismissed W.P.No.16l39 of 2025 holding tht t respondent No.4 rightly rejected the documents presented by the appcll Lnts as appellant No.3 has no right over the subject property in vierv rf the registered document No.845/2017 on the file of S.R.O., Balanap rr alleged to be executed by her in favour of one Ch.Srinu and also subsequent

i I I I I rl

transactions. It was^{further held that unless the said documents are} cancelled by the competent^{civil courtand the suit filed by appellant No.3} for cancellation of^{the said document is finalizedbefore the Principal} District court, Medchal-Malkajgiri,^{appellant No.3 has no right to sell the} subject propertY.

¶62

The learned Single^{Judge fuither held that mere filing of charge} sheet against ch.Srinu^{and others in the criminalcase cannot be taken as} conclusive^{proofas the sameis pending, and the same can be decidedby} thecompetentCivilCourtwhereappellanlNo.3hasfiledacivilsuitfor cancellation of^{the registered document,and if appettantNo'3 obtainsa} favourable order^{in her favour in the suit,she has right to sell the subject} property.

¶63

Challenging^{the saidorderof the leamed Single Judge' the present} Appeal is filed.

¶64

Sri B.S.^{Prasad,leamed Senior Counsel representing IWs Pearl Law} Associates^{appearingfor the appellants contended that the order passed by} the leamed Singte^{Judge is withoutappreciation of undisputedfacts bome} out of clinching^{evidence and that the learnedSingle Judge committed} patent illegality in^{observing that the appellant No'3/petitionerNo'3 has} norighttosellthesubjectpropertytilldisposalofthesuitlrledbyherin

¶65

¶66

O.S.No.342 of 2018, and such a finding on the civil ris rt, in exercise of Writ^jurisdiction is unwarrante d.

¶67

It is further contended that the learned Single Jrr, ge misconstrued the factual aspects, which are explained in detail with rL cumentary proof as to the absolute right and title

¶68

I 3. Leamed Senior Counsel further vehementlv co tended that the leamed Single Judge ought to have appreciated that ',hen proper and necessary parties were made in the civil suit in resl; ct of the cause espoused in the civil suit evident from the pleadings r I the plaint and stated that Civil Court's jurisdiction was invoked by a rpellant No.3 to remove the cloud on the valuable rights of appellant l,l r.3, it can never mean to say in law that appellant No.3 should wait for th: outcome of the civil suit to enable or to deal with her own property, anc such basic facts are necessary for consideration

¶69

Leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the 11 pellants further contended that the purchaser of the property of appellar No.3 is neither necessary nor proper party to the Writ Petition as the caus i espoused in the Writ Petition is not adversarial as between appella I No.3 and the fraudsters including the last purchaser p.Matadri in^. re tight of the indisputable lacts bome out of the records where the ,olice have laid

¶70

¶71

l charge sheet against^{the fraudsters andthe said P.Maladrihasenteredinto} compromise with^{the vendor fraudsters and received the saleconsideration} andwhenachequewasdishonoured,institutedacomplaintunderthe provisions of the^{Negotiable Instructions Act'}

¶72

In support^{of these contentionsthat the registering officeris not} concemed with^{the title heldby the executant and he has no adjudicatory} power to decide^{whether the executant has any title' leamed Senior} Counsel^{placed reliance on the decision tn K'GopiVs' Sub-Regislrar and}

¶73

otherst^.

¶74

Therefore,^{leamed SeniorCounsel appearing for the appellants} contended that^{the order passed by the leamedSingle Judge is liable to be} set aside by^{allowing the Writ Petition directingrespondentNo'4 to} register the 3^{saledeeds as prayed for'}

¶75

On the other^{hand, Sri MuratidharReddy Katram' learned} Government^{Pleaderfor Stamps and Registrationappearingon behalf of} respondents^{contendedthat the documents presented by the appellants} were kept for^{scrutinyandassigned document numbers' andupon} examination^{of the said documents,it was found that appellant No.3has} already sold^{the subject propefty to one Ch'Srinu vide Doc'No'84512011'}

¶76

I 2025 SCC OnLine s740

¶77

¶78

who in tum sold the subject propefty to one K.Ram Gopr and Ch.Srinivas Babji vide loc.Nos. l535l20l7 and 1579/2017 respecti,., ly, and the said persons sold the subject propefty to P.Maladri vide Dc:.Nos.2648/2017 and 3083/20 17, thereby the subject property is involre I in double and triple registrations. Therefore, the appellants were inforr red of their right to prefer appeal before the District Registrar as per li :ction 72 of the Registration Act. 1908 and without exhausting such ri11; t, the appellants have filed the Writ Petition.

¶79

Learned Gor"crrment Pleader for Stamps and R: listration further contended that the order passed by respondent No.4 rs well within his rights to refuse registration of the sale deeds and there a'r no merits in the Appeal.

¶80

In supporl of his contentions, leamed Governrr :nt Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Suprerr Coufi in Thotu Gangu Lcrmi tnd others Vs. Government of Arulh, a Prodesh and olhers2, wherein it was held that it is only when a sale cle e J is cancelled by a competent Court that the cancellation deed can be regi:;t:red and that too after notice to the concemed parties.

'2012(t)^{ALD 90}

20 Wehavegivenoureamestconsiderationtothecontentionsraised, and perused the record.

¶85

21 . The record speaks^{that P.Maladri filed o.S.No.427of 2017 against} the vendor of^{appellantNos.l and 2 i.e. appettantNo'3 and three other} fraudsters seeking^{perpetuatinjunction in respectof the schedule property'} wherein the leamed civil^{court held thata cloud persist overthe plaintiffs} (P.Maladri)titleandhehasfailedtoestablishhispossessionand enjoyment over^{the schedulepropeftyas on the date of filing of thc suit} and the appropriate^{remedyfor the plaintiffis to file a comprehensivesuit} seeking declaration,^{possession and injunction'}

¶86

22.TheleamedCivilCour.tfurtherheldthattheappellantNo.3herein lrted certihed^{copies of rectificationdeeds vide Doc.Nos.2039l20l'7and} 264812017.^{Thereby, leamed Civil Court observed that the plaintiff} (P.Maladri) approached^{the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the} material facts.^{The leamed Civil Courtfinally held that "l am firmly of the} opinion that^{the plaintiff has failed to establishthathe was in possession} and enjoyment^{of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' propertiesas on the date of} filingofthesuit.Consequently,heisnotentitledtodiscretionaryreliefof injunction^{as prayedfor. Notably,the plaintiffhimself admittingduring} cross-examination^{that he did not fite any documentto demonstrate his}

¶87

^_a

¶88

¶89

possession of the suit^{schedule properties, in the absence: 'such proof,the} issue of interference by^{the defendants does not arise". l-l erefore, leamed} Civit Court dismissed^{the suit filed by P.Maladri.}

¶90

The appellant^{No.3 instituted suit O.S.No.342ol} 018 against the fraudsters as well^{as P.Maladri (Plaintiff in O.S.No.427I} f 2Ol7) seeking cancellation of sale^{deed dated03.02-2017bearingI)} rc.No.845/2017, wherein the said P.Maladri filed^{writtenstatementalc t} g u,ith certified copy of charge sheet^{in C.C.No.940 of 2008 filedagainst t} re fraudsters.

¶91

It is not in dispute^{that criminal proceedingswer'<} initiated on the complaint of appellant No.3^{atteging fabricationol'} documents and fraudulent transactions in^{respect of the schedule proper} y, and that after investigation a charge sheet^{cameto be hled against thea} leged fraudsters. However, it is well^{settled that criminal proceedingr;} and civil rights operate in distinct^{spheres.The filing of a charge s.r} )et can, at best, indicate the existence of^{a prima laciecase for the ptu} :ose of criminal prosecution, but it neither determines^{nor extinguishes :} vil rights or title to immovable^{property,whichcan be adjudicatedonly} by a competent Civil Court.

¶92

Equally settled is the^{legal position that the mere p ndencyof a civil} suit, in the absence of any^{interim order of injun: ion or statutory}

prohibition restraining alienation,^{does not create a bar eitheron the} execution or on the^{registration of a document.In the present case, no} injunction or prohibitory^{order has been placedon record restraining} appellant No.3 tiom dealing^{with the schedule property. Therefore, the} conclusion drawn^{by the leamed SingleJudge that appellant No'3has no} right to alienate the^{property till the disposal of O.S.No.342 of 2018} amounts to an adjudication of^{civilrights, which is impermissible in the} exercise of writ^{jurisdiction.}

¶97

The reliance^placed by^{the learned Govemment Pleader on the} judgment of the l{on'ble Supreme Court in^{ThotaGanga laxnu(Supra)is} misconceived. l'he^{saiddecision deals with the registration of unilateral} deeds of cancellation^{and the circumstances under which such cancellation} deeds may be^{registered.The issue in the present case is not the} registration of a^{cancellation deed, but the refusal to registerfreshsale} deeds presented lor^{registration. Hence, the ratio laid down in Thota} Ganga Laxmi^{has no application to the factsof the present case'}

¶98

On the^{other hand, the decisionreliedupon by the leamedSenior} Counsel appearing^{for the appellants in K.Gopi(supra)is exactlyon} similar circumstances^{whereinthe Sub-Registrar refusedto register the} sale deed,^{whichwas reiectedin the writ Petition on the groundthat the he}

¶99

¶100

has not impleaded the legai heirs, since petitioner in the su d case based his title on unregistered will. The Hon'ble Apex court hell rhat in the event of any doubt regarding title, the registering authority. i empowered to retum the document under the provisions of the Registrati, ,n Act, 190g. In the said case, the petitioner was granted liberty to work o r remedies under law.

¶101

In the said decision, the Hon,ble Supreme Couft ronsidered Rule 55A of the Registration Rules. which reads asunder:

¶102

"6. 55A (il The registering fficer before v,hom a documen. ,elating to immovable properly is prc.sented Jbr re,<i.rtration, shall not r gisf cr the same, unless the presentant produt:e.r lhe pret,ious origirc, deetl by u'hich the executanl acquired righl over the subject proltt t 1, arul an Encumbrance ()ertificate pertaining lo the property ohtainei rithin ten days .from the date of presentation;

¶103

Provided that in case an encuntbrance as to mortgtt, e, ortlers on otlachment oJ propertjt, sale ogr.r:cment or.lease ogree,t. )nt exists over lhe property, the registering o/Jicer shall not rcS.i ter .such documenl dthe time limil .fbr .liting oJ.suit is not lap.setl or Nt, )bjection Cerli,ficute is not granted bv lhe approyiotc ituthorily rtr ru,s npi of the attachment is nol done, as the case nruy be,. provided furt.t r that in cose lhe previrnts original deetl is not availahle as the pro1,t.ty being an anceslrol one, the regislering o;fficer shalt nol regii ,er .such document. unle.s.s the presenlanl praduce any reyerll\ recortl evidencing the exeLutant,s right ot,er lha suhject proper\t sttt) ($ ptllla copy issued by Ret,enue Departrnent or tox reccipl;

Provided also thal if the previous original deed is lost, the registering olficer shall rcgister such documenl only on production of non-lraceable Certificate issued by the Police department along with the advertisement published in the local Newspaper as to the notice of loss tl the previous original deed;

¶108

l'rovided also that production of the previous original deed shall.not be necessary where the Government or a Statutory body is the execulant of the document or for such class of documents as may be notified by lhe Inspeckr Generol of Registration, from time to time

¶109

(i, l'he ragisrering ofrcer, on being satisfied thot the description of the proper1' contained in lhe tlocument presented for registralion conforms with the descriplion of the property found in the previous orryinaL dced produced by the presentant as provided under this rule. he shall inscribe lhe word'verified' on a conspicuous porlion of the Jirst page of such title deed and ffix his signature with date and thereafter causc stanning of page containing such inscription tts a reference documenl

¶110

(iii) In case where revenue records are produced under lhis rule. lhe sume shull be scanned as the main document and^where NonTraceahle Certifcata und the advertisement published in the local Newspaper are suhmitted by the^presentant, the same shall^{be scanned} as refe re nt e doc um an I s..

¶111

Provided that such verification and scanning of lhe^previous original deed or record in the manner provided^under this^rule, shall not be construed to he un act of ascertaining the^validity ol^lhe documenl presented for registration and also^{lhesameshall not absolve} or deprive any person.front^lhe Provisions^{containedin Parts XIV and} XV of rhe Registration Act,^{I 908(Central Act} XVI of^I908)".

¶112

¶113

Rule 55-A rnandates th.u 'nhen a documenl re'( tmg to dn immovable properrt- is presented fot' registration beJbrt the Officer concerned, the same shall nol be registered unle.vs th:^prescntanl produces lhe previous original deed by wltich lhe erectil tt ocquired the right over the suhject property...

¶114

¶115

The Apex Court also referred to Sections 22-A and 22-E incorporated by the State of Tamil Nadu in the 1908. The said provisions s .ates as under:

¶116

"8. ... 22-A Refusal to register certain documenls - Notwith:it |ding anything contained in thi.s Act, the regislering oJficer sha!l rc.fusa lo rt: i ;ler any oJ'the fo^{I low i ng docume nt s nom e Iy. -}

¶117

u'tt_y oJ'sale, (1) instrument relating to the transfer of immovable propertic ')] gift, mortgage, exchanEie or lease;

¶118

(i) belonging to the Stote Government or the local author j) or Chennai Metropolitan Developmenl Autfutrily established under Setr on 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Town ancl Country Planning Act, 197 I ;

¶119

(ii) belonging lo, ot' given or endovted.[or the purp<tse ,t, uny religious institution to u,hich the T'amil Nadu R.eligious and Charitul I' Endowmenls Acr. 1959 is applit'uble..

¶120

(iii) donated ./br llhoodun Yagna ond vc.sted the Tr.ut I Nudu State Bhoodan Yagrut Board established under Section 3 of trt, l'umil Nudu Bhoodcn Yagna Act, 1958; or

¶121

(n) of llakfs v,hich are tutder the superinlendence o/ the T,t il lt'adu Ilalcf Boord established under the Wakf Act, 1995; unless a sanctit t in lltis regard issued by the competent authority as proNided under the relev,t t Act or in the absence of any such authorily, an authority so attthorised bl tl' t State Page 7 oJ l3 Civil Appeal l\to.395.1 of 2025 Oovernnrcnt .fitr t\ s plu'po.se, is produced before lhe regislering oticer;

¶122

¶123

(2) instrument relating to the transfer oJ ownership of lands^{converted as} house sites without the^permis.sion for^{development of such land} from planning authority^{concerned;providedthat the housesites wilhout such} permission may be registered iJ it is shown thal^{lhe same house site has been} previously registered as house sile

¶124

22-t). Refisal to register fbrged^{documenlsand other documentsprohibited} by law- Notwithstanding anything^{contained in this Act, the registering} o.fficer shall refu.;e to^registerthe follou,ing^{documents,namely;-}

¶125

(l) forged document;

¶126

(2) document relaling to transaclion. t'hich is prohibited by any Central^Act or State Act Jbr the time being in.litrce:

¶127

(3) document relating lo translbr of imrnovable^{propertyby way of sale, gift,} lease or olherwise, which i.s^{attachedpermanentlyor prttvisionallyby a} competent authori) under^an.)' Central^{.4ct or State Act} for^{the time being in} .force^{or any Courl or '[ribunul.}

¶128

(4) any other document as the State Government^{may,by noliJication,} spec{y".

¶129

The Hon'ble Supreme Court,^{while considering the scope and object of} Rule 55-A, has held that^{the registering otficeris entitled to satisfyhimsetf} as to the production of docunrcnts^{evidencing the mannerin which the} executant claims right^{over the subject property, and that non-production} of such documents^{may constitutea valid ground for refusal. At the same} time, the Supreme court^{has unequivocallyclarified that such scrutinyis} limited to procedural^{compliance and does not vest the registering} authority with any^{powerto adjudicate upon disputed questionsof title or}

)

f-)

to examine the validity of prior or subsequent )onveyances. The registering officer cannot assume the role ofa civiI cour by weighing rival claims or by deciding whether the executant urtimatelv t lssesses a valid or superior title.

¶135

{

¶136

In the present case, appellant No.3 has product,r thc original title deed under which she craims right over the schedure pr(,r erty. tt is also not in dispute that she has initiated criminal proceedings rLI eging fabrication and fraudulent execution of subsequent document; culminating in registration of an FIR and hling of a chargc sheer, and has further approached the competent civ, Court by instituting o r .No.342 0f 20lg seeking cancellation of the disputed sale deed. Signifirt ntly, the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the subsequent purchast r p. Maradri, in O.S.No.427 of 2017, stood dismissed, the Civil Courl I rving lound that the plaintiff failed to estabrish possession or enlitlen-r rt [o injunctive relief.

¶137

In such clrcumstances, the registering authority :ould not have refused registration solely on the ground ofpendency ol.r; vil proceedings, more particularly when Appellant no.3 hersell- frlc r the suit for cancellation of the sare deeds. Further, in the absence r.r rny restraint or

¶138

¶139

I l i I l

¶140

prohibitory^{order, the registering authorityought not to have refused} registration^{ofthesubject sale deeds'}

¶141

30.^{The registrationof the subject sale deeds' if effected' shallnot} amount^{to be a declarationor conhrmationof title' but only operate to} convey^{such right, title or interest' if any'as appellantNo'3 may ultimately} be held^to Possess

¶142

31'^{Therefore,this Court deems it properto set aside the order passedby} the leamed^{SingleJudge and allow the Appeal directingthe ofhcial} respondents^{to registerthe subjectsaie deeds'The registration is subjectto} the final^{outcomeof the cancellationof sale deeds bide O'S No' 342 of} 2018.

¶143

32.^{Subjectto above observations'W'A'No'1447of 2025 is allowed'} Miscellaneous^{applicationspending' if any shallstand closed' There shall}

¶144

be no order^{as to costs'}

¶145

SD/.t.NAGALAKSHMI
JOINT REGIST
//TRUE COPY//

¶146

a.
ECTION OFFICER

¶147

To,

¶148