Telangana High Court
Abdul Khader Died vs The State Of Telengana on 19 June, 2025
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ W.P.No.34325 of 2023
% 19.06.2025
# Between:
Abdul Khader, S/o.Late Mr.Moosa Bhai @ Moosa (died)
aged about 62 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.M.No.22-7-294/29, Inside Diwan Devdi,
Hyderabad and others
Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Telangana,
rep through its Principal Secretary,
Stamps and Registration Department,
having office at T.S. Secretariat,
Hyderabad and others
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sri Mustafa Basith
learned counsel for petitioners
^Counsel for the respondent(s):
1. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. A. Venkatesh, learned senior counsel representing
Sri K. Vijay Bhakar Reddy, Learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.5 to 13
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 (2010) 15 SCC 207
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 544
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.34325 of 2023
ORDER:
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of
respondent No.4 in registering the sale deeds i.e., (1)
C.S.No.2999 of 2021, P.No.224 of 2021, PN dated 27-12-
2021 registered as document No.609 of 2023 registered
on 27.12.2021 (2) C.S.No.3000 of 2021, P.No.225 of
2021, PN dated 28-12-2021 registered as Document
No.610 of 2023 on 27.12.2021, (3)C.S.No.3001 of 2021,
P.No.226 of 2021, PN dated 28-12-2021 registered as
document No.611 of 2023 on 27.12.2021 in respect of
properties i.e., seven (7) Shops on Ground Floor bearing
M.Nos.22-7-294/19, 22-7-294/20, 22-7-294/21, 22-7-
294/22, 22-7-294/23, 22-7-294/24, 22-7-294/25, three
(3) shops on First Floor bearing M.Nos.22-7-294/26 and
22-7-294/27 and remaining first floor Residential portion
bearing M.No.22-7-294/28 and entire Second floor
residential bearing M.No.22-7-294/29 (On plot No.A, in
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
3
old premises No.22-7-253 to 264, totally admeasuring
250 Sq. yards with total built up area of 6750 Sq. Feet,
(i.e., 2250 Sq. Feet each floor), situated at Inside Diwan
Devdi, Hyderabad, Telangana (hereinafter referred as ‘the
subject properties’) during the subsistence of restraining/
prohibitory Orders passed in I.A.No.618 of 2019 in
O.S.No.599 of 2019 on the file of XXVI Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. During pendency of the present Writ Petition, the
1st petitioner died and vide order dated 10.12.2014 the
LR’s i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were brought on record.
3. Facts in brief as stated in the Writ Petition are as
follows:
Petitioner submits that he acquired seven (7) Shops
on Ground Floor, three (3) shops on First Floor and
remaining first floor Residential portion and entire
Second floor residential (the subject properties – on plot
No.A, in old premises No.22-7-253 to 264, totally
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 20234
admeasuring 250 Sq. yards with total built up area of
6750 Sq. Feet, (i.e., 2250 Sq. Feet each floor), by way of
Registered Gift Deed vide Document No.145 of 2008
dated 28-01-2008 registered at the office of Sub-
Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad.
4. Petitioners further case is that the said Gift Deed
bearing Document No.145 of 2008 was cancelled
unilaterally vide Cancellation of Gift Deed bearing
document No.1775 of 2012, dated 12-12-2012 and Gift
Deeds in favour of one Mr.Abdul Raheem and Ms.Zubeda
Bai got executed vide Document Nos.1780 and 1781 of
2012 and 1013 of 2013 in respect of the subject
properties. The petitioner filed W.P.No.12962 of 2014 and
this Court by an order dated 24.04.2014 restrained the
Respondents from alienating the properties. Thereafter
the Petitioner filed a suit viz., O.S.No.599 of 2019 for
declaration of title and consequentially holding the
cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed dated 12.12.2012,
registered as document No.1775 of 2012, and the gift
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
5
settlement deeds dated 21.12.2012 and 30.03.2013,
registered as document Nos.1780 of 2012, 1781 of 2012
and 1011 of 2013, as null and void, in-operative and not
binding on petitioner / plaintiff and perpetual injunction
not to interfere with the possession and to restrain the
unofficial Respondents from alienating the property. The
said suit is pending on the file of the XXVI Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the said
suit, petitioner filed I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S.No.599 of
2019 for grant of interim injunction and the trial Court
granted status quo orders restraining the respondents
from alienating/ transferring/ creating charge in respect
of the subject properties until further orders on
16.11.2021.
5. It is further submitted that a copy of the order
dated 24.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.12962 of 2014 was
served to the Respondent No.3. Accordingly,
aforementioned property was included in the prohibition
properties list and the orders of this Court were
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
6
subsisting until 08-12-2022. Thereafter the said Writ
Petition was closed directing the Petitioner to seek the
appropriate relief in the pending comprehensive Suit i.e.,
OS.No.599 of 2019.
6. It is further submitted that the restraining orders of
the trial Court passed in I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S. No
599 of 2019 were served on 06-12-2022, the Sub-
Registrar, Charminar had issued a reply Notice on 16-12-
2022 seeking clarification with regard to extension of
orders beyond 13-08-2019. Thereafter the petitioner
furnished a certified copy of the order wherein the orders
were extended up to and until further orders on 16-11-
2021. It is their further case that though the properties
were listed in Prohibited list of properties maintained by
the Registration department and in spite of the Orders
from this Court, the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, executed
registration in respect of the subject properties on
27.12.2021 by allotting the following Pending Registry
Vide Book-I:
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 20237
(1) C.S. No. 2999 of 2021, P. No. 224 of 2021,
(2) C.S. No. 3000 of 2021, P. No. 225 of 2021,
(3) C.S. No. 3001 of 2021, P. No. 226 of 2021,in spite of fully being well aware that there is a
prohibition order subsisting on the subject property from
this Court had allotted the Pending Document for more
than a period of 14 months. Thereafter the Petitioner
gave a representation on 06-12-2022 intimating the
Interim Orders passed by the XXVI Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thereafter the Sub-
Registrar, Charimnar issued a notice to the Petitioner
and to his counsel requesting to update whether the
Orders passed in I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S. No 599 of
2019 are subsisting as on 06-12-2022.
7. It is further submitted that by serving certified copy
of aforesaid interim order, the Petitioner requested the
Respondent No.4 to cancel the pending registration
executed by Mr.Abdul Raheem and Ms.Zubeda Bai
pending disposal of the Suit. However, the Respondent
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
8
No.4 informed the Petitioner that the aforementioned
property was added in prohibition list and neither any
registration will be entertained by the Sub-Registrar
Charminar nor the pending document will be released till
specific orders are received from the Hon’ble Court in
OS.No.599 of 2019.
8. It is further submitted that on 13.04.2023, on
verifying the electricity bill, the petitioner came to know
that his name was replaced by one Mr.Mohammed Nawaz
Khan. Thereafter the Petitioner enquired about the
change of name in the electricity department wherein the
officials of the department informed that the name in the
Electricity bill in respect of subject property was changed
on the basis of Registered Sale Deed provided by the said
Mr.Mohammed Nawaz Khan. Thereafter the Petitioner
enquired through the official website of registration
department wherein he came to know that the Pending
Registry Vide following Book-I :
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 20239
“(1) C.S. No.2999 of 2021, P. No. 224 of 2021,
dated 27-12-2021 was registered vide
document No.609 of 2023 dated 27.12.2022.
(2) C.S. No. 3000 of 2021, P. No. 225 of 2021,
PN dated 28-12-2021 was registered as
document No.610 of 2023 on 27.12.2023.
(3) C.S. No. 3001 of 2021, P. No. 226 of 2021,
PN dated 28-12-2021 was registered as
document No.611 of 2023 on 27.12.2023.
9. The main grievance of the petitioner is that inspite
of having knowledge about the pendency of the Suit and
Orders passed in I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S. No 599 of
2019 pending on the file of XXVI Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, respondent No.3 had
violated the said order which is a clear dereliction of his
duties though having knowledge regarding the subject
property which is being subjudice since 2014 and by
notice dated 06.12.2022 and 14.12.2022 wherein, the
Petitioner served the Restraining Orders of the Hon’ble
Court which is in subsistence.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
10
10. It is further submitted that the Sub-Registrar,
Charminar, Hyderabad / Respondent No. 4 inspite of
direct orders of the trial Court had sought clarification
from the Government Pleader of City Civil Court,
Hyderabad wherein it was opined by way of legal opinion
that registering and releasing documents would not
amount to violation of Court orders as the alienation of
the property was already completed on 27-12-2021. It is
further submitted that the Government Pleader and Sub-
Registrar, Charminar in active collusion with the
unofficial respondents have registered the property
during the pendency and subsistence of the Interim
Orders of the Hon’ble Court as such the same is illegal
and liable to be revoked and cancelled. Questioning the
same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
11. A counter has been filed by the incharge Sub-
Registrar, SRO Charminar, Hyderabad – respondent
No.3, wherein it is submitted that it was not mentioned
whether the petitioner or their representative provided a
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
11
copy of the Status Quo order to Respondent No.3,
preventing them from refusing registration of documents
related to the disputed property, therefore, the 3rd
Respondent could not stop registration of documents over
the subject property in dispute unless information of the
interim orders is provided by the parties to the suit.
12. It is further submitted that the petitioner ought to
have challenged the Sub-Registrar’s unilateral admission
and registration of the cancellation deed of the Gift
Settlement deed, recorded as Document No.1775 of 2012
and the petitioner did not specifically request the Hon’ble
High Court to annul the subsequent Gift Settlement
deeds containing the subject property in dispute,
executed by Ms.Hoora Bai and got registered by her as
Documents No.1780 and 1781 of 2012, and 1011 of 2013
in the years 2012 and 2013 and the subsequent
transactions occurred well before the filing of the writ
petition.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
12
13. It is further submitted that in pursuance to the
orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.16243 of 2014
in WP.No.12962 of 2014 issuing directions to maintain
the status quo, the said orders were duly recorded in the
prohibition register of the Office of Respondent No.3 and
Respondents No.7 and 8 were not included as parties in
W.P.No.12692 of 2014 until 2022. Consequently, the
actions of Respondents No.7 and 8 with respect to the
property in question were not restrained by Respondent
No.3 during the said period. It is further submitted that
the petitioner had neither informed about any prohibitory
orders, nor served the copy of the Order. The reason for
the pendency of the said documents was based on the
High Court’s order dated 24.04.2014, directing
restraining the alienation of the property. However, the
property has already been alienated by Mrs.Hoora Bai
through Settlement deeds in the year 2012 and 2013.
Since Respondents No.7 and 8 were not made parties to
the Writ Petition until 2022, the documents executed by
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
13
them were admitted for execution and were kept Pending
and not admitted for registration in order to comply with
the orders of this Court on 24.04.2014 in W.P.No.12692
of 2014.
14. It is further submitted that the petitioner though
informed regarding the interim order on 16.11.2021,
however, no copies of the orders were received by
respondent No.3 at that time. Counsel for the Defendants
in the O.S. and unofficial respondent, claimed that the
status quo orders were extended only until 13.08.2019
and later memos of extension were not filed. It is further
submitted that the status quo orders were not received
and W.P.No.12962 of 2014 was dismissed on 08.12.2022
and later received the extension orders on 14.12.2022,
but they were not absolute orders prohibiting property
alienation, as claimed by the petitioner.
15. It is further submitted that in view of the rival
contentions, respondent No.3 sought legal advice and
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
14
referred the matter to the Government Pleader, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad, who opined that releasing the pending
documents would not violate the status quo orders, as
the property’s alienation had already occurred in the year
2021. It is further submitted that based on the legal
opinion, respondent No.3 admitted the pending
documents for registration and were released.
16. A counter has been filed by respondent No.8 on
behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 13. While denying the
averments in the writ petition would submit that the
prayer sought by the petitioner can only be granted
under specific relief Act. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has filed a time barred suit vide O.S.No.599 of
2019, and obtained interim order in the said suit and the
Court granted status quo but the respondents were not
aware of the interim orders passed by the Court. As such
the petitioner cannot seek invoking jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for cancellation of
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
15
registered document and the relief can be sought only
before a competent Civil Court.
17. In the brief background of the case as narrated in
the counter, it is submitted that originally one Mr.Moosa
Bai, S/o Abba Esa, who was popularly known as
Mr.Moosa Seit got married to one Ms.Hoora Bai and was
residing at Purani Haveli House. The said Mr.Moosa Bai
and Ms.Hoora Bai were running a clothes business under
the name and style of “Lucky Traders” on the subject
property on lease basis. Thereafter they constructed a
building out of the income from the said business and
also purchased the disputed property on 03.07.1972 vide
Registered Document No.16 of 1973. Later when they had
no children have adopted the Petitioner, Respondent
Nos.6 and 7 and another daughter by the name
Ms.Zareena and were living together.
18. On 06.02.2002 when the said Moosa Bai died
petitioner hatched a plan to acquire the subject property
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
16
fraudulently on the pretext that he would take Hoora Bai
to Haj Pilgrimage/ Umrah Pilgrimage and took the
signatures of Hoora Bai on Blank Papers and got the
alleged Gift Deed bearing Document No.145/2008
registered in his name. Thereafter on coming to know
about the fraud played by the Petitioner, the said Hoora
Bai approached the Registration office and got the alleged
Gift Deed bearing Document No.145/2008 cancelled vide
Document No.1775/2012 and gifted the disputed
property to the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 vide 3 registered
Gift Deeds bearing Document Nos.1780 and 1781 of
2012 and 1011 of 2013.
19. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a case before this
Court vide Writ Petition No.12962 of 2014 and said Hoora
Bai filed a detailed counter and during the pendency of
the Writ Petition, the Petitioner filed a suit vide
O.S.No.599 of 2019 before the Hon’ble XXVI Additional
Chief Judge seeking a relief of declaration of title and the
same was pending. This Court dismissed the Writ
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
17
Petition, and directed the Petitioner to pursue remedies
in the pending suit in O.S.No.599 of 2019 and closed all
the miscellaneous Petitions pending in the Writ Petition.
20. The Petitioner got status quo order and the same
was extended until further orders. Respondents Nos.6
and 7 were not aware of the Status Quo order passed by
the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court and the
Sale Deeds were executed in favour of Respondent No.13.
Thereafter, the same was kept pending by giving pending
numbers before the registration officer in view of the
status quo order and pending suit on the file of XXVI
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. It is further
submitted that on the basis of the Legal opinion given by
the Respondent No.5 had executed the Sale Deeds in
favour of Respondent No.13. Eventually, it is prayed that
the present Writ is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
18
21. A counter has been filed on behalf of respondent
No.13. While denying the submissions made by the
petitioners, it is submitted that the Sub-Registrar has
strictly complied with the mandate of law and he has to
accept the documents tendered for registration which has
to be exercised save in the circumstances precluding him
to do so and that there was no interim order granted by
the Civil Court restraining the Registrar from registering
the document as such the writ petitioner has no cause of
action against the un-official respondents to call for their
action and the writ petition is barred by principles of
resjudicata. It is further submitted that respondent No.13
has substantial interest on the subject properties and
that respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the writ petition has sold
the immovable property to respondent No.13 under three
separate sale deeds i.e., Document Nos.609, 610 and 611
of 2023 dated 27.12.2021 now which are sought to be
cancelled in the present writ petition. It is further
submitted that an application in I.A.No.949 of 2023
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
19
under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. in O.S.No.599 of 2019
was filed which is pending before the Civil Court and
eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS:
22. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the Petitioner has filed a Suit for declaration
of title along with other reliefs and filed I.A.No.618 of
2019 in O.S.No.599 of 2019 for grant of Injunction
against the alienation of schedule properties. The trial
Court has granted Status Quo orders which were
extended from time to time and on 16.11.2021, the
interim orders were extended until further orders. The
Petitioner No.1 vide Notice dated 06.12.2022, intimated
Respondent No.3 with regard to the Status Quo Orders
restraining any kind of transaction in respect of schedule
properties. The Sub Registration Office (SRO), Charminar
had issued a reply Notice seeking clarification regarding
extension of orders and the Petitioner No.1 again served
the Certified copy of orders which were extended until
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
20
further orders on 16-11-2022, and the said order was
received by the SRO under acknowledgement and the
same has been admitted by Respondent No.3.
23. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that
despite being served with the orders, Respondent No.3
registered the sale deeds in violation of Standing Order
No.219 issued by IG Stamps and Registration, which
mandates refusal of registration in cases of judicial
prohibition, thereby respondent No.3 violated the orders
of the court.
24. Learned counsel further submits that the illegal
registrations have caused significant harm to the
Petitioners by depriving them of their rightful ownership
over the disputed property and in spite of availability of
efficacious alternate remedy, the writ is maintainable. In
support of his submissions placed reliance in case of
Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Singh v. Khacheru And
Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 9 (Dated 22-01-2025) and
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
21
draws attention to paragraph No.14 of the said order
reads as follows:
“27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate
remedy arise where:
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of a fundamental right protected
by Part III of the Constitution;
(b) there has been a violation of the principles
of natural justice;
(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction; or
(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
[15] Thus, it would be true to say that the
existence of the statutory remedy does not
affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to
issue a writ.”
Further reliance was placed on the following judgments:
“i. ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004)
3 SCC 553: Writ jurisdiction can be invoked to
enforce fundamental and legal rights, even if
alternative remedies exist.
ii. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1: Alternative
remedies do not bar writ jurisdiction,
especially in cases of jurisdictional errors or
violation of natural justice.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 202322
iii. Radha Krishan Industries v. State of
Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771: High
Courts have plenary power to intervene when
statutory authorities act beyond their
jurisdiction or infringe constitutional rights.”
25. Learned counsel further submits that the Courts
have inherent powers to nullify actions that defy judicial
orders and undermine the sanctity of the judicial
process. In support of his contention placed reliance on
the following judgments:
“a) Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper
Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622:
Any act done in violation of court orders is null
and void, and the court must restore parties to
their original positions.
b) Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar
Kisku, (1994) 2 SCC 266: Acts in violation of
injunction orders are illegal, and courts must
intervene to reverse such actions.
c) Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah, AIR
1975 Mad 270: Courts have inherent powers
under Section 151 CPC to nullify actions that
violate their orders.
d) M/S Asian Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Telangana, 2024 LawSuit(TS) 326: Actions
taken during the subsistence of a status quo
order are illegal and unenforceable.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
23
e) BalwantbhaiSomabhai Bhandari v.
Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, AIR 2023 SC
4390: Contumacious transactions must be
reversed to prevent wrongdoers from gaining an
advantage.”
26. Learned counsel further submits that respondent
No.3 has admitted in the counter-affidavit that their office
received the interim orders on 06-12-2022 which were
made absolute on 16.11.2021 and the extension orders
on 14-12-2022. However, despite this acknowledgment,
the Respondents proceeded with the registration of sale
deeds and the said action is total violation of Standing
Order No.219 which explicitly mandates Sub-Registrar to
refuse registration when judicial prohibitions are in force.
In support of his contention placed reliance on the
following judgments:
“i) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State
of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656: Sub-Registrars
must adhere to judicial orders, and violations
render registrations void.
ii) K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573:
Actions that undermine judicial authority are
void ab initio.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 202324
iii) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,
(1994) 1 SCC 1: Fraudulent actions
circumventing judicial orders are non-est in
law.”
27. Learned counsel further submits that the Court has
inherent power to ensure justice and in support of his
contention he placed reliance on the following judgments:
“i) Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, (2002) 1 SCC
100: Courts have wide-ranging powers to ensure
justice and undo acts that violate judicial
orders.
ii) T. Lakshmikantha Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1979 AP 281: The Sub-Registrar’s
failure to comply with statutory and judicial
mandates warrants judicial intervention.”
28. Learned senior counsel Sri A. Venkatesh appearing
for the respondent Nos.6 to 13 would submit that
admittedly the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.599 of 2019
seeking the relief of declaration that he is the absolute
owner for the subject property and for permanent
injunction and sought for an interim order and the civil
court has granted an interim order of status quo. If the
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
25
grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that in violation of that
Status Quo order and thereby, the impugned sale deed is
executed, the remedy lies in the pending civil suit to seek
appropriate relief and for that purpose he cannot
approach the Writ Court. Learned senior counsel would
further submit that the registration department is not a
party to the said suit and the Registering Officer under
the Registration Act, 1908, is not competent to examine
whether the executants of a document has any right, title
or interest over the property which is the subject matter
of the document presented for registration, and that SRO
is obliged to strictly comply with the provisions of the Act.
The power of the Sub Registrar to accept the documents
tendered for registration has to be exercised save in the
circumstances precluding him to do so. However, no
interim order is granted by the civil court, restraining the
registrar from registering the document.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
26
29. It is further submitted that this Court in WP
No.12962 of 2014 dated 08.12.2022 considered the same
issue and directed as follows:
“5… As the petitioner has already sought for a
relief of declaration of tile and cancellation of
various registered documents by filing the said
suit, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it
open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies in
the pending suit in O.S. No. 599 of 2019 on the
file of Court of XXV Additional Chief Judge, City
civil Court, Hyderabad.”
30. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the
aforesaid order attained finality and the present WP is
again filed impugning the act of the official respondents
in registering the document on the pretext that there are
interim orders pending 8.12.2022. But, there is a specific
direction of this Court in WP 12962 of 2014 that the
petitioner shall take recourse to OS.No.599 of 2019 only
and not before this Hon’ble Court and submit that the
present Writ Petition is therefore barred by principles of
res judicata.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
27
31. Learned senior counsel would further submit that
Respondents 6 and 7 sold the immovable property to
respondent No.13 under three separate registered sale
deeds dated 27.12.2021 (Document Nos.609, 610 and
611 of 2023) and the said documents are sought to be
cancelled in the present Writ petition. It is further
submitted that certain facts are suppressed by the
petitioner that the original owner of the property is Sri
Moosa Bhai and after his death on 06.02.2002, his sole
heir/widow Mrs.Hoora Bhai became the absolute owner
of the property and on the death of said Hoora Bhai
intestate on 20.07.2018, the writ petitioner is claiming to
be ‘adoptive son’ of Hoora Bhai exerted undue influence
on her taking advantage of her old age and obtained a gift
cum settlement deed dated 28.01.2008 Document No.145
of 2008 which was cancelled by the said Hoora Bhai on
12.12.2012 vide Document No.1775 of 2012. Thereafter
the said Hoora Bhai had executed three (3) Gift cum
settlement deeds in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 on
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
28
21.12.2012 and 30.03.2013 vide Documents Nos.1780
and 1781 of 2012 and document No.1011 of 2013. By
virtue of the same, the respondents 6 and 7 have become
absolute owners of the property and in turn they sold the
property to respondent No.13 under the three impugned
sale deeds dated 27.12.2021 which are legal and valid.
32. Heard Sri Mustafa Basith, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and
Sri A. Venkatesh, learned senior counsel representing
Sri K. Vijay Bhakar Reddy, Learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.5 to 13. Perused the record.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:
33. Aggrieved by the unilateral cancellation of the gift
deed bearing No.145 of 2008, the petitioner filed a suit
vide O.S.No.599 of 2019 for declaration of title and
consequentially holding the cancellation of Gift
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
29
Settlement Deed dated 12.12.2012, registered as
document No.1775 of 2012, and the gift settlement deeds
dated 21.12.2012 and 30.03.2013, registered as
document Nos.1780 of 2012, 1781 of 2012 and 1011 of
2013, as null and void, in-operative and not binding on
petitioner / plaintiff and perpetual injunction not to
interfere with the possession and to restrain the
unofficial Respondents from alienating the property,
which is pending on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the said suit the
petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.619 of 2019 in
O.S.No.599 of 2019 seeking ad-interim injunction against
the respondents / defendants restraining them to create
any third party interest by way of sale or mortgage or
otherwise on the subject property. The trial Court vide
order dated 16.11.2021 granted interim order until
further orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners by a
letter dated 06.12.2022 had informed the Sub-Registrar,
Charminar regarding the said orders and requested not
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
30
to entertain any kind of registration / transaction over
the subject property. Thereafter counsel for the petitioner
issued a contempt notice dated 13.12.2022 to the
respondents including the Sub-Registrar, Charminar,
Hyderabad questioning the allotment of pending
registration numbers to the documents, which are
executed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 in favour of
respondent No.13. The Sub-Registrar, Charminar,
Hyderabad by letter dated 16.12.2022 informed that the
status quo orders which were made absolute on
16.11.2021 were not received till date. Thereafter the
petitioner again issued a contempt notice dated
16.05.2023 to both the District Registrar and the Sub-
Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad. Thereafter on
17.06.2023 the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad
informed the petitioner that the documents were released
stating that the Sub-Registrar’s duty is only to check
whether the subject property is a Government property
but the same was not in the prohibitory properties list
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
31
and accordingly, processed and released the document
on 09.03.2023 after disposal of W.P.No.12962 of 2014.
34. On perusal of the legal opinion issued by
respondent No.5, which is obtained by the petitioner
under Right to Information Act, 2005, it would reveal that
the Government Pleader, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad
has not specified in the said legal opinion on whose
request, the said legal opinion was given. That apart in
the letter dated 17.06.2023 the Sub-Registrar,
Charminar, Hyderabad neither referred to the legal
opinion sought by him nor mentioned about any legal
opinion. The petitioner has also issued contempt notice
dated 17.08.2023 to the Deputy Inspector General,
Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad referring to the
earlier contempt notice dated 16.05.2023 informing that
the orders of the Hon’ble Court were violated with a copy
to the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad –
respondent No.3 and the Commissioner and Inspector
General of Stamps and Registration Department –
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
32
respondent No.4. It is pertinent to note that in the
Statement of Encumbrance of the subject property, the
pending document Nos.224 and 225 of 2021 executed on
27.12.2021 are kept under scrutiny.
35. In the counter filed by the Sub-Registrar,
Charminar, Hyderabad, it is submitted that in terms of
the orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.16243 of
2014 in WP.No.12962 of 2014 issuing directions to
maintain the status quo, the said orders were duly
recorded in the Prohibitory Register, and the respondent
No.3 being a party to the said writ petition and being
aware of the said orders, ought to have sought
clarification/orders from respondent Nos.2 and 4 for
deleting the subject documents from the prohibited
register and based on the unsolicited legal opinion went
ahead and released the document on 09.03.2023 without
deletion of the said property / documents from the
prohibited registration. The said action of the Sub-
Registrar, Charminar is in total violation of the Court
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
33
orders and against the provisions of the Registration Act,
1908.
36. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Limited v. S.P. Velayutham and
others1 (in Civil Appeal Nos.27522753 of 2022) decided
on 04.05.2022, explained the essential steps comprising
registration and scope and maintainability of writ petition
against the failure of the Registrar to perform their
statutory duty and further clarified the proper forum for
challenging the registration process. Relevant paragraphs
are extracted for ready reference:
“53. Actually, the registration of a document
comprises of three essential steps among others.
They are,
(i) execution of the document, by the executant
signing or affixing his left hand thumb impression;
(ii) presenting the document for registration and
admitting to the Registering Authority the execution
of such document; and
(iii) the act of registration of the document.
54. In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or
without the relief of declaration that the registered
document is null and void, what gets challenged, is
a combination of all the aforesaid three steps in the1
(2022) 8 SCC 210
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 202334
process of execution and registration. The first of the
aforesaid three steps may be challenged in a suit for
declaration that the registered document is null and
void, either on the ground that the executant did not
have a valid title to pass on or on the ground that
what was found in the document was not the
signature of the executant or on the ground that the
signature of the executant was obtained by fraud,
coercion etc. The second step of presentation of the
document and admitting the execution of the same,
may also be challenged on the very same grounds
hereinabove stated. Such objections to the first and
second of the aforesaid three steps are substantial
and they strike at the very root of creation of the
document. A challenge to the very execution of a
document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any
defect or illegality on the execution, is congenital in
nature. Therefore, such a challenge, by its very
nature, has to be made only before the civil court
and certainly not before the writ court.
55. The third step namely the act of registration, is
something that the Registering Authority is called
upon to do statutorily. While the executant of the
document and the person claiming under the
document (claimant) are the only actors involved in
the first two steps, the Registering Officer is the
actor in the third step. Apart from the third step
which is wholly in the domain of the Registering
Authority, he may also have a role to play in the
second step when a document is presented for
registration and the execution thereof is admitted.
The role that is assigned to the Registrar in the
second step is that of verification of the identity of
the person presenting the document for registration.
56. Thus, the first two steps in the process of
registration are substantial in nature, with the
parties to the document playing the role of the lead
actors and the Registering Authority playing a guest
role in the second step. The third step is procedural
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
35
in nature where the Registering Authority is the lead
actor.
57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for
declaration that a registered document is null and
void, all the aforesaid three steps which comprise
the entire process of execution and registration
come under challenge. If a party questions the very
execution of a document or the right and title of a
person to execute a document and present it for
registration, his remedy will only be to go to the civil
court. But where a party questions only the failure
of the Registering Authority to perform his statutory
duties in the course of the third step, it cannot be
said that the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 stands completely ousted. This is
for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court is to ensure that statutory authorities perform
their duties within the bounds of law.
58. It must be noted that when a High Court, in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 finds
that there was utter failure on the part of the
Registering Authority to stick to the mandate of law,
the Court merely cancels the act of registration, but
does not declare the very execution of the document
to be null and void. A declaration that a document is
null and void, is exclusively within the domain of the
civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court
cannot examine the question whether or not the
Registering Authority performed his statutory duties
in the manner prescribed by law.
59. It is well settled that if something is required by
law to be done in a particular manner, it shall be
done only in that manner and not otherwise.
Examining whether the Registering Authority did
something in the manner required by law or
otherwise, is certainly within the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226. However, it is
needless to say that the High Courts may refuse to
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
36
exercise jurisdiction in cases where the violations of
procedure on the part of the Registering Authority
are not gross or the violations do not shock the
conscience of the Court. Lack of jurisdiction is
completely different from a refusal to exercise
jurisdiction.”
37. That apart on a perusal of the gift settlement deed
bearing document No.145 of 2008 dated 28-01-2008,
registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Charminar,
Hyderabad, the said Hoora Bai is donor / settler had
gifted the subject property in favour of the donee /
petitioner No.1 and the said document has been signed
by both the donor and donee. Whereas in the cancellation
of gift settlement deed bearing document No.145 of 2008
dated 28-01-2008 which was cancelled by way of
document bearing No.1775 of 2012, dated 12.12.2012
only the settler has signed and such unilateral execution
of the document was registered at the office of Sub-
Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad. The cancellation of the
Gift Settlement Deed (Vide document No.145 of 2008)
dated 12.12.2012 is the genesis of the entire litigation.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
37
38. At this juncture, it is also necessary to refer to the
Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Thota Ganga Laxmi V. Government of Andhra
Pradesh2, wherein the Apex Court held that if any sale
deed is required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by
way of a civil suit for cancellation, but no cancellation
deed can be unilaterally executed or registered. The
Supreme Court, after referring to Rule 26(i)(k) of the
Registration Rules, held that it is only when the earlier
sale deed is cancelled by a competent court, can a
cancellation deed be registered that too after notice to the
concerned parties; and unilateral cancellation of the sale
deed, as well as registration thereof, were wholly void,
non est and meaningless transactions.
39. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already
filed a comprehensive civil suit in respect of the subject
property, the earlier writ petition vide W.P.No.12962 of
2
(2010) 15 SCC 207
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
38
2014 was dismissed directing the petitioner to pursue his
remedy before the said civil court. Both the parties are
claiming rights on the schedule properties and there are
disputed questions of facts, the issues cannot be decided
on the basis of the affidavits.
40. For the foregoing reason and by applying the law
laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi V. Government of
Andhra Pradesh and Asset Reconstruction Company
(India) Limited v. S.P. Velayutham and others, the
registering authority did not perform their statutory duty
as prescribed by law. It is made clear that mere
registration of document does not confer any title.
Eventually all the documents arising out of the said
registrations which are subject matter of this writ petition
are rendered invalid and the act of Sub-Registrar,
Charminar, Hyderabad in registering the said documents
in question is hereby cancelled.
NVSK,J
W.P.No.34325 of 2023
39
41. In view of pending suit i.e., O.S.No.599 of 2019 on
the file of XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, for a relief seeking declaration of documents
as null and void is exclusively within the domain of the
Civil Court, the parties may pursue their civil remedies in
the said pending suit. It is also made clear that this
Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case to the extent of possession and title of the parties
and the trial Court may decide the suit on its own merits
un-influenced by the observation of this Court.
42. With these observations, this writ petition stands
disposed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
June 19, 2025
Note: LR copy to be
marked. B/o.PN