Disposed¶65

Sri Lingareddy Venkata Subba Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2026WA/366/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: impounding; instrument not duly stamped; Section 33 Indian Stamp Act 1899; Agreement of Sale dated 17.03.2017; delay in presentation; overwriting on document; District Registrar Sangareddy; W.P. No. 40502 of 2025; W.A. No. 366 of 2026; modification of writ judgment deleting operative part; no scope to consider objections while impounding; Telangana Stamps and Registration; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of by modifying the impugned writ-court judgment: the operative part directing respondent No.4 to take into account the counter affidavit/objections of respondents No.5 to 7 is deleted; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed. ¶65

Sri Lingareddy Venkata Subba Reddy Vs The State of… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether, while dealing with an application for impounding/validation of an Agreement of Sale which is not duly stamped, the operative direction in the writ court's judgment requiring respondent No.4 to take into account the objections of respondents No.5 to 7 (delay in presentation and overwriting) was warranted under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶61

Court's answer

In matters of impounding in respect of instruments which are not duly stamped, there is no scope under the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, such as Section 33, to get into questions such as delay in presentation of the document and overwriting on it.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

The operative part of the impugned judgment directing respondent No.4 to take into account the counter affidavit/objections of respondents No.5 to 7 while examining the document was unnecessary; the impugned judgment is modified by deleting that operative part.

¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (W.A. No. 366 of 2026, disposed 01.04.2026): appellant had applied on 08.09.2025 to the District Registrar, Sangareddy for validation/impounding of an Agreement of Sale dated 17.03.2017; on the Registrar's inaction, W.P. No. 40502 of 2025 was disposed with a direction to consider the appellant's representation together with the counter affidavit of respondents No.5 to 7 objecting on grounds of delay in presentation and overwriting. Held: in matters of impounding instruments not duly stamped, there is no scope under the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (such as Section 33) to enter into those questions; that operative part of the impugned judgment was unnecessary and has been deleted. Appeal disposed of without costs.

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸¹

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SRI APARESH KUMARSINGH} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE G.M.^MOHIUDOIN

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 366 OF 2026

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause t 5 of the Letters^{Patent Againstthe Order Dated} 12-02-2026 in W.P.NO 4O5O2 oI 2025 on the file of the^{High Court.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Lingareddy Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o Lale^{L. StlbpqRed_dy'aged about B0} years, 6cc Business, Rl/o H. No. 4351A, Road No.20, Jubilee Hills,^{Hyderabad T.S} 500 033

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rdpresented by^{PrincipalSecretary- Revenue} (Registration and Stamp) Govemment of Telangana, at Secretariat, Tankbund, Hyderabad

¶13

The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and^{Commissionerlnspector} General of Registration, and Commissioner^{lnspector General of Registrqtion} and Stamp,S-3-953, Registration Bhavan,^{4th and Sth Floor, NizamShahi} Road, M.J. Market, Hyderabad Telangana 500001

¶14

The Assistant lnspector General of Stamps^{TelanganaState,5-3-953,} Registration Bhavah, 4th and 5th Floor,^{NizamShahiRoad,M.J.Market,} Hyderabad 500001

¶15

The District Registrar of Sangareddy, Door No.4-8, 38/a and b,^Manjeera Nagar Sangareddy Telangana - 502001

¶16

M/s G.P.R Housing Private Limited,^{(ClNU65993AP1992PTC013861)A} Company incorporated under the^{provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,} having iti registered office at 6-9-28912, Arundelpet, Guntur, Andhra^Pradesh - 522OO2 Represented by its Authorized Signatory

¶17

Sri. G. Punna Rao, S/o Late G. Lakshminarayana, aged about 60^{years Occ} Managing Director, M/s GPR Housing Private Limited H. No. 6-3-788/3212,^1st Floor, Main Road Ameerpet, Hyderabad Telangana -500 016

¶18

Sri G. Kalyan Babu, S/o G. Punna Rao, aged about 38 years, Occ Director, M/s G.P.R Housing Private Limited FIat No.90'1, VAYU Block, My Home Nava Deepa, Marlhapur, Seriligampally (Mandal), Hyderabad, Telangana - 500081

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

Petition unrler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 10-02-2026 in W.P No.40502 ot 2026, pending disposal of the writ appeal in the interest of justice pending disposal of the writ appeal in the interest of^justice.

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI KEERTI PRABHAKAR, . rep., SRI G.MANJIRA VENKETESH

¶23

counserf ortheRespon'""'t?tr*'ift,9-irt!?xf,

¶24

FsE??""i$Hfl ts",

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents No.Sto7 :

¶26

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGAIYA}

¶28

AT HYDERABAD

¶29

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICESRI APARESH KUMARSINGH}

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT No.366 of 2026

Dated: 01.04.2026

Between:

Sri Lingareddy Venkata Subba^Reddy

¶36

...Appellant

¶37

and

¶38

The State of Telangana,

¶39

Represented by Principal Secretary^{Revenue (RegistrationandStamp),} Government of Telangana, at Secretariat, Tankbund, Hyderabad,

and 6 others.

...Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri Keerti^{Prabhakar, representinglearned}

¶44

counsel Sri G.Manjira Venkatesh,^{appears for the appellant.}

¶45

Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram,^{learned Govemment Pleader for}

¶46

Revenue (Stamps and Registration),^{appears for respondentsNo.l to 4.}

Learned Senior counser Sri B.Mayur Reddy, representing rearned counsel sri Atla Abhinandhan Reddy, appears for respondents No.5 to l'.

¶51

The present writ appear arises out of the judgment dated 10.02.20r'-6 passed by the rearned wrir court disposi,g of w.p.No .40502 of 2025 filed by the appellanr herein.

¶52

orL rhe apptication of the appelranr dated 0g.og.2o2s seeking validation/irnpounding of Agreement of Sale dated 17.03.2017, no decision was taken by respo,dent No.4 District Registrar of Sangaredrly, which compeiled the appeilant to approach the rearned writ court. The learned writ court disposed of the writ petition with a direction rrpon respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the appellant dated 08.09.2025 as well as the counter affidavit filed by respondents No.5 to 7 where they have taken some objections regarding the document i.e., grounds of deray in its presentation for impounding and that it r:ontained certain overwriting.

¶53

4' The appellant has preferred this writ appeal being aggrieved by that part of'the impugned judgment whereby the learned writ court has directed respondent No.4 to consider the objections of respondents No.5

¶54

¶55

-aa-

¶56

to 7 while taking the decision on the application of the^{appellant for}

¶57

impounding of the Agreement of Sale.

¶58

Learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.5 to 7 submits^that the learned writ court has only asked respondent No.4 to take^into consideration the objections relating to delay in^presentation of^the document and certain overwriting on it.

¶59

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue^{(Stamps and} Registration) submits that he has to take instructions in the^{matter as to} whether any decision has been taken by respondent No.4^pursuant to the impugned^judgment.

¶60

¶61

7 . On consideration of the rival submissions of the^parties, we are of the view that in matters of impounding in respect of instruments which are not duly stamped, there is no scope under the relevant^provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, such as Section 33, to^get into those questions. As such, the operative part of the impugned^judgment which has directed respondent No.4 to take into account the counter affidavit of respondents No.5 to 7 containing certain objections while^examining the document was unnecessary. The irnpugned^judgrnent is^accordingly modified deleting the said operative part.

¶62

¶63

Wt: are also surprised as to why on the application of the appellant before respondent No.4, no action was taken rvhich compelled the appell.lnt to approach the learned writ court.

¶64

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and on consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment is modified to the aforesaid extent

¶65

I0. Tht: writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as tc costs.

¶66

Mir;ce[[aneous applications pcnding, il any, shall stand closed.

¶67

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary Revenue^(Registratio n Stamp) Govemment of Telangana, at Secretariat, Tankbund, Hydera

¶72

The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Commissioner lnspector General of Registration, and Commissioner lnspector General of Registration and Stamp,5-3-953, Registration Bhavan, 4th and Sth Floor, Nizam Shahi Road, M... Market, Hyderabad Telangana 500001

¶73

The Assistant lnspector General of Stamps Telangana State, 5-3-953, Registratkrn Bhavan, 4th and Sth Floor, Nizam Shahi Road, M.J. Market, Hyderabari 500001

¶74