Smt.Paranda Balamma vs The State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025

Telangana High Court

Smt.Paranda Balamma vs The State Of Telangana on 2 May, 2025

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

                  WRIT PETITION No.14810 of 2025

  ORDER:

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.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered

by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of

2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and also the recent

Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi Vs

The Sub-Registrar1 and requested to pass similar order

in this writ petition.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and

Registration has not disputed the submission made by

the learned counsel for the petitioners.

12025 SCC OnLine SC 740
2
SK, J
WP_14810_2025

4. The relevant portion of the order in

W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as

under:

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is
only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under
the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made
thereunder in particular Sections 19, 20, 21, 22-A, 34, 35 and rule
58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are
existing in respect of any such document presented for the
registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated
under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering
authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a document on
any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the
impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are
passed is that the link document shown in the respective documents
is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking into a
validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirectly
verifying whether the executants of the respective documents are
having valid title or not to execute the documents in question. As
held in the above referred judgment in the case of Dr. Yadla Ramesh
Naidu (1 supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go into the
title of the parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendee
under a document will not get a better title than his vendor and in
case if vendor is not having a valid title over the property which is
the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under the
said document does not get any title over such property and mere
registration of such document will not have an effect on the property
which is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightly conceded by the learned Government Pleader for
Stamps and Registration, the registering authorities are not entitled
to refuse registration of a document on mere ground that the title of
the executants of the respective document is based upon the
validated document, though the same is compulsorily registerable
document cannot be accepted and such a ground is not available to
3
SK, J
WP_14810_2025

the registering authorities to refuse registration of a document on
that ground.

19. 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 respective document is a validated document or to
refuse registration of such document by placing reliance on
endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the Commissioner and
Inspector General of Stamps and Registration. Accordingly, the
impugned orders in the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and
Writ Petitions are allowed with a further direction to the respondent
registering authorities to receive the returned documents and to
process the same subject to the condition of the said documents
complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

5. In K.Gopi‘s case (supra 1), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as under:

“The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by
the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the
executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or
a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the
registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the
procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as
well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that
under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-
Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor
has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the
registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are
present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before
him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above,
the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a
document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any,
that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or
interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any
transfer.

4

SK, J
WP_14810_2025

6. In view of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and

batch dated 11.01.2023 and also the Judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi‘s case (supra 1) and

for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition is

disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of

Refusal dated 12.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.4

and the respondent authorities are directed to receive the

returned documents and process the same subject to the

condition of the said documents complying with the

provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian

Stamp Act, 1899. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ

petition, shall stand closed.

____________________
JUSTICEK.SARATH
Date: 02.05.2025
spk