Telangana High Court
A. Venkatesh vs The State Of Telangana on 21 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.5266 of 2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
“to declare the in-action of Respondent No.3 Sub-
Registrar, Maredpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad to
receive and register the sale deed presented by the
petitioner in respect of residential flat bearing Nos.G1
and G2 in ground floor admeasuring 450 sq.ft., each
respectively along with common area situated in plot
No.148 along with undivided share of G1 flat is 18
sq.yds., out of total admeasuring 233 sq.yds., along
with two wheeler parking situated at Sy.No.74/12, Sri
Nilayam Apartment situated at Three Moorthy Weaker
Sections Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., at East
Maredpally, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad, Telangana
(subject proeprty).”
2. The facts of the case are that petitioner herein has
purchased the subject property from Sri Mala Prem Kumar for a
valuable sale consideration and the vendor has executed a sale
deed dated 23.01.2025 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner
approached respondent No.3 i.e., Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally,
Secunderabad for the purpose of registering the sale deed to be
executed by the vendor. However, respondent No.3 orally refused
to register the same. Aggrieved by the same the present writ
petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondent authorities are duty bound to receive, register and
2
release the subject document and in case of not registering, they
shall assign reasons for refusal and pass orders accordingly. As
such, it is prayed to direct the registering authority to register
and release the subject document.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn
attention of this Court to Section 32 and 34 of the Registration
Act 1908, which reads as under:-
“32. Persons to present documents for
registration.–Except in the cases mentioned in 1
[sections 31, 88 and 89], every document to be
registered under this Act, whether such registration be
compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the
proper registration-office,–
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the
same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order,
claiming under the decree or order, or
(b) by the representative or assign of such a person, or
(c) by the agent of such a person, representative or
assign, duly authorized by power-of attorney executed
and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.
34. Enquiry before registration by registering
officer.–(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this
Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89,
no document shall be registered under this Act, unless
the persons executing such document, or their
representatives, assigns or agents authorized as
aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within
the time allowed for presentation under sections 23,
24, 25 and 26.”
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted
that the procedure for seeking registration of a document is that
the parties first and foremost have to execute the document by
signing the document and by following the provision
3
contemplated under Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act
1908 and shall present the document before the registering
authority. He would further submit that the parties have to pay
registration charges, stamp duty and other incidental charges by
way of challan and the estimated amount for the same will be
available in IGRS website, wherein Stamp duty and registration
charges will be calculated, enabling the parties to pay the
challan. Thereafter, the parties shall approach the registering
authority, enclosing the challan along with the relevant
documents, which proves that the parties have approached and
made a proper presentation of document sough for registration.
However, in the preset case the petitioners had not enclosed the
copy of challan, and no application was filed as a proof that the
petitioner had approached the respondent No.3.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also placed
on record the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner
and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana,
Hyderabad vide Circular Memo No.G3/9122/2024, dated
12.08.2024, which reads as under:-
“Attention of the Sub-Registrars and Officers in the
address entry is invited to the reference cited, wherein
Hon’ble High Court, while disposing the W.P No.16836/2024
and batch cases, dated: 09-07-2024 issued common orders
with certain guidelines to the Registration Authorities and
instructions to concerned parties.
4
In compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High
Court, the following instructions are issued.
i) Whenever parties/citizen approach to register the
documents, the concerned Sub-Registrar, shall as
expeditiously as possible preferably within one week, either
register the document or pass refusal order, in terms of the
Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and
communicate the same to the concerned parties. In no case,
the Sub-Registrars shall not refuse the documents orally for
registration, and it must be followed by a written refusal
orders.
ii) In case documents are refused for registration, the Sub-
Registrars shall inform the procedure for refund of Stamp
Duty and registration charges to the concerned
parties/Citizens clearly. The refund shall be strictly as per
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Registration Act, 1908.
iii) Sub-Registrars shall maintain a watch Register/ General
Diary (GD Book/ Entry Book/ Register) at every Sub-
Registrar Office and to make entries of the parties
approaching the office on a particular date and time for the
purpose for which they approached the office, so as to avoid
interference, tampering and misrepresentation.
In view of the above Sub-Registrars are hereby
directed to maintain a Register in the following proforma.
Sl.N Da Ti Na Full Cont Purpo Signat Remar
o. te me me Posta act se of ure of ks
of l No. visit the
the addre and party
Part ss prope
y rty
detail
s
All the Sub- Registrars shall invariably maintain the
register in the above proforma in their office and shall be
kept open to the visiting public to the office to record their
purpose for the future reference.
5
The District Registrars shall ensure that the above Registers
are opened and maintained in the each Sub-Registrar Office
on regular basis.
iv) The registering authorities shall follow the guidelines
issued in the cases of Vinjamuri Rajagopla Chary Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh and M/s. Invecta Technologies Private
Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh.
These instructions shall be followed scrupulously. If
any deviation is found, suitable disciplinary action will be
initiated. These instructions will not supersede the citizen
charter prescribed for various services rendered by the
department.”
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in
the circular dated 12.08.2024, the sub-registrars were directed
to register/refuse the documents presented before them, duly
following the guidelines issued in the cases of Vinjamuri
Rajagopla Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 and M/s.
Invecta Technologies Private Limited Vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh 2 and pass order, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably, within one week from the date of receipt of the
documents.
8. Strongly disputing the contentions of the petitioners,
learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the
petitioners neither approached the respondent No.3 nor
presented any document for registration. As such, the question
1
2016 (2) ALD 236 (FB) : 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 407
2
2024 (1)ALT 272
6
of refusal by the respondent does not arise, and therefore, a writ
of mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondent to
register the so called proposed sale deed.
9. Heard and perused the material available on record.
10. It is not out of the place to observe that this Court on
many occasions observed that the petitioners in their writ
affidavits are stating that the Sub-Registrars are orally refusing
to register the documents. It is striking to note that the parties in
order to ensure that the document presented for registration
shall not be rejected/refused for registration are filing writ
petitions without following procedure contemplated under
Section 32 and 34 of the Registration Act 1908, and are trying to
seek orders by misleading the Court. Many of such instances
have come to the notice of this Court.
11. Under those circumstance, it is relevant to refer the
order dated 19.08.1999, passed in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs.
Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli 3. The relevant paragraphs are
extracted here under:-
“8. The well established Rule, subject to certain
exceptions, is that the applicant for mandamus must3
1999 (6) ALD 144
7show by evidence, that he made a demand calling upon
the concerned authority to perform his public duty and
that was met with refusal either bywords or by conduct
Applying this salutary rule, the Apex Court in Saraswati
Industrial Syndicate Ltd Etc., v.- Union of India, thus :
“….. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 arc
not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for
prerogative writs are subject in English practice.
Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or
order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when
there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in
this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of
mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is
subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in
England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could
be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury’s Laws of
England (3rd edition, Vol.13, P. 106):
‘As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the
party complained of has known what it was he was
required to do, so that he had the means of considering
whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown
by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that
which the party seeking the mandamus desires to
enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal”.
From the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is
clear that the petitioners could not and did not show that
they made a demand to the respondent and that was
met with refusal. Therefore, it is not possible to issue the
declaration sought for or the consequential direction
commanding the respondent herein to register the sale
deeds proposed to be executed by the petitioners in
favour of their purchasers. This view of mine gains full
support from the decision of a Division Bench of this
Court in D. Ratnasundari Devi v. Commissioner of Urban
Land Ceiling, .
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions fail
and are accordingly dismissed, but without costs.
However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from
presenting the sale deeds for registration before the
respondent. In such an event, I am sure, the respondent
will immediately discharge his statutory duties
mentioned in Part XI of the Act and consider
registerability of the sale deeds. I am also sure that in
8
case the registration is refused, he will certainly record
the reasons as enjoined by Section 71 of the Act and
furnish a copy thereof, if the petitioners apply for the
same.”
12. It is also relevant to refer the order passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Jayaram and others Vs.
Bangalore Development Authority and other 4, the relevant
paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“10.It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised
by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary
and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the
writ court must come with clean hands and put forward
all facts before the Court without concealing or
suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state all
facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds
some vital or relevant material in order to gain
advantage over the other side then he would be guilty
of playing fraud with the court as well as with the
opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.
11. This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank
of India 1 has held that a prerogative remedy is not
available as a matter of course. In exercising
extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear
in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking
such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full
facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise
guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss
the action without adjudicating the matter. It was held
thus:
“33. It is thus clear that though the appellant
Company had approached the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not
candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High
Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over4
(2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 815
9and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is,
therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party
approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts
before the Court without any reservation. If there is
suppression of material facts on the part of the
applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the
Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the
petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of
the matter.”
12. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare
Sanstha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others2, this Court has reiterated that the writ
remedy is an equitable one and a person approaching
a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands.
Such person should not suppress any material fact but
also should not take recourse to legal proceedings over
and over again which amounts to abuse of the process
of law.
13. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India
Limited and Others 3, it was held thus:
“34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and
discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are
issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of
utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the
writ court must come with clean hands, put forward
all the facts before the court without concealing or
suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief.
If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and
material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading
the court, his petition may be dismissed at the
threshold without considering the merits of the claim.
35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated
by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v.
Kensington Income Tax Commissioner in the following
words:
… it has been for many years the rule of the court, and
one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain,
that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain
relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full
and fair disclosure of all the material facts–it says
facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can
10help it–the court is supposed to know the law. But it
knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must
state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by
which the court enforces that obligation is that if it
finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly
stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it
has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.”
36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course.
While exercising extraordinary power a writ court
would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party
who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the
applicant makes a false statement or suppresses
material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court
may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may
refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating,
“We will not listen to your application because of what
you have done.” The rule has been evolved in the
larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants
from abusing the process of court by deceiving it.
37. In Kensington Income Tax
Commissioners.(supra), Viscount Reading, C.J.
observed: (KB pp. 495-96) “… Where an ex parte
application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi
or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion
that the affidavit in support of the application was not
candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated
them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the
true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and
to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed
any further with the examination of the merits. This is
a power inherent in the Court, but one which should
only be used in cases which bring conviction to the
mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before
coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be
made of the facts as they are and as they have been
stated in the applicant’s affidavit, and everything will
be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the
Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true
facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing
is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived,
then it will refuse to hear anything further from the
applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in
motion by means of a misleading affidavit.”
11
38. The above principles have been accepted in our
legal system also. As per settled law, the party who
invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful,
frank and open. He must disclose all material facts
without any reservation even if they are against him.
He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to
“pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to
suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other
facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If
material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very
functioning of writ courts and exercise would become
impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts
having a bearing on the relief sought without any
qualification. This is because “the court knows law but
not facts”.
39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington
Income Tax Commrs.(supra) is kept in mind, an
applicant who does not come with candid facts and
“clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with
“soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of
material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery,
manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation,
which has no place in equitable and prerogative
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the
material facts fairly and truly but states them in a
distorted manner and misleads the court, the court
has inherent power in order to protect itself and to
prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule
nisi and refuse to proceed further with the
examination of the case on merits. If the court does not
reject the petition on that ground, the court would be
failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to
be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the
process of the court.”
13. In the case on hand, the petitioners at paragraph No.3
of the writ affidavit stated the following:-
“The petitioner respectfully submits that the
petitioner herein approached respondent No.3, Sub-
Registrar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad
12District for the purpose of registering the sale deed to be
executed by the vendor. However, the Sub-Registrar,
Bowenpally Secunderabad, Hyderabad District refused
to receive and register the sale deed presented by the
petitioner in respect of subject property……”
14. It is Pertinent to note that in the present case neither a
refusal order was passed nor any reason was assigned in writing
by the respondent No.3 denying registration and infact the draft
sale deed filed in the material papers is unsigned. The learned
counsel for the petitioners, who verified the pleadings of writ
affidavit, had misrepresented the facts and tried to secure an
order.
15. In this connection, it is significant to refer the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti Sardarshahar and another
Vs. Union of India and other 5 wherein at para 11 observed as
under:
“11. It is a settled proposition of law that a
party has to plead the case and
produce/adduce sufficient evidence to
substantiate his submissions made in the
petition and in case the pleadings are not
complete, the court is under no obligation
to entertain the pleas. In Bharat
Singh v. State of Haryana [AIR 1988 SC
2181] this Court has observed as under :
5
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221
13“13. … In our opinion, when a
point which is ostensibly a point of
law is required to be substantiated
by facts, the party raising the point,
if he is the writ petitioner, must
plead and prove such facts by
evidence which must appear from
the writ petition and if he is the
respondent, from the counter-
affidavit.
If the facts are not pleaded or the
evidence in support of such facts is
not annexed to the writ petition or to
the counter-affidavit, as the case
may be, the Court will not entertain
the point. There is a distinction
between a pleading under the Code
of Civil Procedure and a writ petition
or a counter-affidavit. While in a
pleading i.e. a plaint or a written
statement, the facts and not
evidence are required to be pleaded,
in a writ petition or in the counter-
affidavit, not only the facts but also
the evidence in proof of such facts
have to be pleaded and annexed to
it.”
16. In my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the
learned Assistant Government Pleader is well founded.
14
Admittedly, the petitioners did not produce any documentary
proof in support of their averment that they had executed and
presented the sale deed for registration before respondent No.3,
and the same was refused for registration. The petitioners could
not even mention the date on which they had approached the
respondent. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to accept the
statement of the petitioners that they had approached the
respondent authority for registration, more so, when that
statement is specifically denied by the respondent.
17. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the order passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Syal V. State of Punjab 6
dated 22.05.2003, the relevant paragraph is extracted
hereunder:-
“In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and
solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is
necessary that parties should not make false or
knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation
and/or should not conceal material facts with a design
to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the
court, when a court is considered as a place where truth
and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party
attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to
make misrepresentation and is concealing material
facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be
ready to take consequences that follow on account of its
own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous
treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are
either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning
proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take6
2003 Supp(1) SCR 242
15serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity
and grace in the administration of justice.”
18. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that any false statement in the petition is abuse of law and
serious view has to be taken by Court. In the present case, the
petitioners in order to suit their case and to secure an order have
made misleading averments. Hence, this writ petition is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
19. However, it is made clear that this order will not
preclude the petitioners from presenting the subject document
for registration before the registering authority, by duly following
the due procedure as contemplated under law.
20. With the above observations, this writ petition is
dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 21.02.2025
mrm
