AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to register and release the Sale Deed vide pending Document P.No.166/2023 dated 01.03.2023 by issuing Refusal Order/Intimation No.269 of 2023 dated 15.12.2023 in respect of Plot bearing No.222 admeasuring 150 sq. yards or its equivalent to 125.4 sq. meters with an plinth area 200 sq. feet in Sy.No.1004/Part, roof covered with ACC, situated at Ameenpur Municipality and Mandal, Sangareddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.
Heard Sri E. Akash Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners entered into sale deed with his vendor Mr. Kohinoor Chandra Sekhar and executed a sale deed on 01.03.2023. However, when the petitioners approached respondent No.3 for registration of the sale deed, the same initially kept pending vide document P.No.166 of 2023, dated 01.03.2023, respondent No.3 has refused to register the sale deed, which is wholly unsustainable. It is further submitted 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 recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar1 and requested to pass similar order in this Writ Petition also.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
A perusal of the impugned refusal order dated 15.12.2023, discloses that the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioners was refused on the following reasons:
Registration of the document is refused as it is part of an unauthorized layout and is in violation of the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and stamps Memo No. G2/257/2019, Dt: 26.08.2020 & 29.12.2020.
As per the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Endorsement No. CIG MAIL/AR/2008, Dt: 02.01.2008 unregistered and validated document cannot be accepted as a valid Link Document for registration.
In this context, it is to extract the relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023, which 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. Yada 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 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.
In K.Gopi's case (1 supra), 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."
In view of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 as well as the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi's case (1 supra) and in terms thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to receive, register and release the document bearing P.No.79/2023 presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject property, without reference to the Intimation of Refusal No. 269 of 2023 dated 15.12.2023, subject to the condition that the said document complies with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Footnotes
- 1.2025 SCC OnLine SC 740