Allowed

M.Sudheer Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jun 2025WP/16153/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against refusal to register a sale deed on the ground that the link document was validated. Following an earlier Division Bench order and the Supreme Court's decision in K. Gopi, the Court set aside the refusal and directed registration subject to compliance with statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

Refusal order dated 15.05.2025 set aside; respondents directed to receive returned documents and process them subject to Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Stamp Act, 1899 compliance.

M.Sudheer Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I I

¶2

[³³⁰² ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 16'153 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.Sudheer Kumar,, S/o. M.Rameshwar Rao, Aged about 53^years, Occ. Private Service, Rio, Flat No.1 02,^'lst Floor, Vysya Bank Apartments, Plot No.13, Huda Complex, Saroornagar, Hyderabad 500 035 Presently residing at Flat No.501, 5th Floor, Anokhi, Apurupa Apartment, PIot No.72, Kaviiri^Hills, Phase 2, Beside SBl, Shaikpet, Hyderabad 500 033.

¶11

Kande Madhu,, S/o. Kande Sathaiah, Aged about 47^years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.38, Sairam Nagar Colony, Near Rangasai Super Market, Champapet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District 500 079.

¶12

...pETtTtoNERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana,, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Registrar,, Ranga Reddy Diskict

¶16

The Sub-Registrar., Pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District

¶17

The Commissioner and lnspector General Registration and Stamps,, Telangana' Hyderabad

¶18

...RESpoNDENrs Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to issue an Order, Direction or Writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Refusal Order dated 15.05.2025^passed by the respondent No.3 thereby refusing to register the sale deed dated 15.05.2025 vide P.No. 3112025 on the ground that the registered link document is a validated sale deed vide File No.^{'17353/AR12021dated} 07.05.2025 in^respect of^Plot No.36 admeasuring 433 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.386/12 situated at Pasumamula Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal (formerly Hayathnagar Mandal), Pedda Amberpet Municipality (formerly Pasumamula Gram^Panchayat), Ranga Reddy^Districtas illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, without^jurisdiction and contrary^{to Order Dt.} 11.01 .2023 in W.P No.1631012019 and^batch and being violative of^An14,21 and 300,4 of the Constitution of lndia and^consequently set^{aside the same and}

¶19

further direct the Respondent No.3 to receive and register the sale deed Dt 15.05 2025 vide P.No 31/2025 in accordance with law

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to receive and register the sale ceed Dt. 15.O5.2025 vide P. No 3112025 in respect of the PIot No.36 admeasuring 433 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.386/12 situated at Pasumamula Village, Abdullapurm,-.t Mandal (formerly Hayathnagar Mandal), Pedda Amberpet Municipality (forrnerly Pasumamula Gram Panchayat), Ranga Reddy District in accordance with law, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI V. YADU KRISHNA SAlNATt.l

¶23

Counsel for Respondents: AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTIIATION

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

' s.' .a". %, :' ,/_/

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.16153 of 2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.^With their consent, the writ petition is disposed^{of at the stage} of admission itself.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits^that the issue involved in this writ^{petitionis squarelycovered} by the order passed by this Court in^{W.P.No'16310of} Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme^{Court in K.Gopi Vs} The Sub-Registrart and requested^{to pass similar order} in this writ petition.

¶30

Learned Government^Pleader for^{Stamps ald} Registration has not disputed^{the submission made by} Lhe learned counsel for the^petitioners

¶31

12025 SCC OnLine SC 740

l i I I t

i I i

*i.:€frrst . ".:tI '. /'':

¶36

SK, J wP.16153 2025

¶37

The relevant portion of the order in-

¶38

W.P.No.16310 of 2Ol9 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as

¶39

under:

¶40

The porver of thc registering authoritl to rcfusc r(rgistr-atron is only, if an' of thc grounds or objections thal are enurnlrated under the provisions o[ the Registration Act, 1908, and tlrc Rulcs nrade thereunder in particular Sections 19,20,21,22-A, 34.35 and rulc 58 of the^'l'elangana Rules undcr the Registration Art, 1908, arc existing in respect of any such documcnt prcser ted for thc registration. Dxcept, the grounds or objcctions that ar( cnumerated under the provisions o[ the Registration Act, 1908, tlr(_' registcring authorities have no authority to rclusc registration of a document on any other grolrnd. As already noted above, the ground on q.hich the impugned refusal orders rn all these batch of Wrir pctitions are passed is that the link documcnt sho$n in thc respectt,'c documents is a validated and atr unregistered document. B-v lcoking into a validity of the link document, the registering authorit\ rs indirectly verifying whether the exccutants of the respcctive (locuments arc having valid title or not to exccute the (locumcnts ir. question. As held in thc above refelrcd judgmer.rt in thc case ol Dr. 'adla llamesh Naidu (1 supra), the rcgistering authority is not entitled to go into the title of the parties to tltc document. It is a settled law rl.at the vendee under a document will not get a better title than his r-endor and in case if vendor is not having a valid title over the prol',erty which is the subject matter o[ a particular documcnt, thc vcn(Lee undcr the said document does rlot get an]' title over such prol), rty and mere registration of such document \,ill not have an effect or1 the propertj, which is the subject matter of the said document.

¶41

As rightly conceded by the tearned Govg1np61.1 pleadcr for Stamps and Registration, thc registering authorities aJ.e not enti ed to refuse rcgistration of a documcnt on mere ground llrat the titlc of the executants of the respective document is based upon the validated document, though the same is compulsority registerabte document cannot be accepted and such a ground is n )t available to

SK, J wP 16153_2025

I I I

av-.,-7..

the registering authorities to refuse registration of^{a documenton} that^ground.

¶48

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 rcspecti!'e document is a^validated document^{or to} refusc regrstration oI such document by^{placing relianceon} endorsement, dated 02.O1.2008, issued by^{the Commissionerand} lnspector General of Stamps and Registration.^{Accordingly,the} impugncd orders in the^respective Writ^{Petitions are set aside and} Writ Petitions are allowed^wrth a lurther^{directionto the respondent} registering authorities to rccetvc the^{returneddocumentsand to} process the same subject to the condition of the^{saiddocuments} complying with the^provisions of^{thc RegistrationAct, 1908 andthe} Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶49

5. ln K.Gopi's case^{(supra 1), the Honble SuPreme}

¶50

Court held as under:

¶51

"Thc registering officer is not^{concernedwith the title hetdby} the cxecutant. He has no^{acljudrcatory powerto decide whetherthe} executant has any title.^{Dven Lf an executantexecutesa saledeedor} a lease in respect o[ a land^{in rcspectof which he has no title,the} registering of.rcer cannot^{refuseto registerthe documentif all the} procedural compliances are made and^{thenecessary stamp duty as} well as registration charges/fee^{are paid. We may note here that} under the scheme of the¹⁹⁰⁸ Act,^{it is not the function of theSub-} Registrar or Registering Authority^{to ascertain whether thevendor} has title to the property which^{he is seekingto transfer. Once the} registering authority is satisfied that^{the parties to the documentare} present before him and the parties admit execution thereof^before him, subject to making^{procedural conpliances as narrated above,} the document must be^{registered. Theexecution and registrationof a} document have the effect of transferring^{only those riShts,ifany,} that the executant^{possesses. If theexecutant has no right, title, or}

SK, J wl) t6153 2025

interest in the^{property,the registcreddocument cannol effect any} transfer.

¶56

In view of the order^{in W.P.No'16310of 2019 and} batch dated ll.Ol.2)23^{and a,lso the Judgment of the} Hon'ble Supreme Court in^{K. Gopi's case (s;upra i) ald} for the reasons mentioned^{therein,the WrLt Petitionis} disposed of by setting aside^{the impugnedorder of} Refusal dated 15.05.2025^{passedby the respondent No'3} and the respondent authorities^{are directed ro receivethe} returned documents and^{processthe same :;ubject to the} condition of the said documents^{compl-v"ingwith the} provisions of the Registration Act,^{1908 altd the Indian} Stamp Act, 1899. There shall^{be no orderzi:; to costs.}

¶57

Miscellaneous petitions, if any^{pendirl,3in this writ}

¶58

petition, shall stand closed.

¶59

Sd/- P. PONNA^KRISHNA /,TRUE^COPY/' AtSISTANT^REGISTRAR

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 The District^{Reg istrar,, Rang a ReddY District} 2 The Sub-Registrar',^{Pedda AmberPet, RangaReddy Districl} 3 The Commissioner^{and lnspectorGeneralRegistrationandStamps,,} Telangana,^HYdelabad

¶64