132s21 IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Ti F2 1. Sri. Kotha Suryaprakash Rao, S/o Sri Kotha Narayana, aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No. 1-83, Kokkireni, Khammam, Thirumalayapalem, Telangana. . 2. Sri. Shaik Yakub Pasha, S/o Fathe Mohammed, aged about 36 years, Occ Business, FUo H.No. 11-11-199111418, Joumalist Colony, Vikalangula, Colony Main Road, Khammam, Telangana. .PETITIONERS AND Revenue 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana. 3. The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana. Reddy District' 4. The Joint Sub Registrar l, RO (OB) Patancheru, Sanga Telangana. RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to set aside the Refusal Order No. 35 of 2025, daled 12-09-2025 vide intimation Memo No. 36412025, dated 16'09-2025, issued bythe 4th respondent in refusing the sale deed P.No.775l2025, dated 20-08-2025 presented by petitioners in respect of Property Part of Plot bearing No. 28, Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent lo 278.42 Square meters, (Out of 666.00 Square yards), in Sy.No. 220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Pantancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, Medak) by Direct Respondent No.4 to receive, to process for registering Sale Deed presented by the Petitioners in respect of Property Part of Plot bearing No. 28, Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent lo 278.42 Square meters. (Out of

666.00 Square yards), in Sy,No. 220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Pantancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, lVleclak), without the reference of the Memo No. 36412025, dated 16/09/2025 issued by Respondent No.4, and consequentlyto direct the 4th Respondent to receive, process to register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioner pertaining to the subject property. Petition under 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 pass orders by directing the 4th Respondent to receive, process to register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioner pertaining to the subject Property Part of Plot bearing No, 28, Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent to 278.42 Square meters, (Out of 666.00 Square yards), in Sy.No. 220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Pantancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, Medak), till pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI VEDULAVENKATA RAMANA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI K.HARISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO.33669 OF 2025 DATED: 18.O5.2025 Between:

Sri Kotha Suryaprakash Rao and other ... Petitioners AND The State ofTelangana and 3 others. ..Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Designated Counse! representing, Sri K. Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on record and learned Government Pleader for Stamps. and Registration, appearing on behalf of the respondents. petataoners approached the Court seekinq Draver2. The as under: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to set aside the Refusal Order No.35 of 2025, dated L2.O9.2025 vide intimation Memo No.364/2025, dated 16.09.2025 issued by the 4th respondent in refusing the sale deed P,No.775/2O25, dated 2O.O8.2O25 presented by z petitioners in respect of Property Part of Plot bearing No.28, Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent to

278.42 Square meters, (Out of 666.00 Square yards), in Sy.No.220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Pantancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, Medak) by Dlrect Respondent No.4 to receive, to process for registering Sale Deed presented by the Petitioners in No.28, respect of Property Part of Plot bearing Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent to 278.42 Square meters, (Out of 666.00 Square yards), in Sy.No.220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Patancheru lvlandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, Medak), without the reference of the Memo No.364/2025, dated 16.09.2025 issued by Respondent No.4, and consequently to direct the 4th Respondent to receive, process to register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioner pertaining to the subject property, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the clrcumstances of the above in the interests of justice and equity".

3 The case of the oetitioners in brief as oer the averments made in the affidavit faled bv the oetitioners an suDDort of the present Writ Petition is as under:-The petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of part of Plot No.2B, admeasuring 333 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana, having acquired the same through a validated sale deed. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 and presented J the same for registration before the 4th respondent upon payment of requisite stamp duty and registration charges. However, the 4th respondent refused registration vide Refusal Order No.35 of 2025, dated 12.09.2025, on the ground that the validated document cannot be treated as a link document and that the subject property amounts to subdivision of Plot No.28. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4 The order imouqned rder No.35 ol 2fJ25 dated 12.O9.2O25 issued bv the District Reoistrar of Patancheru At Sanoareddv, is extracted hereunder:-It is hereby informed that the document executed on 20th August 2025 by Kotha Suryaprakash Rao S/o Kotha Narayana in favour of Shaik Yakub Pasha S/o Fateh Mohammad and presented before the undersigned and admitted as P.No.775 of 2025 on 20th May, 2025 has been refused registration for the following reasons.

"Thus in the registration of this pending document there are two points which are not complying with the Instructions contained in C&IG Mail Dt.02.01.2008 writ validated (un-registered and adiudicated) document not to be treated as a Lank Document. Second point is the pending document contains plot No.28 divided into half (which was purchased through Doct.8297 /1984) which is 4 against the instructions contained in C&IG Memo NO.G2/257/2019 Dt.26.08.2020 where it is stated that: "No new Dlot or sub-divis ion shall be reoistered bv Paaic+F.+i.rrr Arrlharilrr ..- acc i+ ic rnnr.^vad hrr }lra authority as oer the provisions of the Act. "Hence for these two reasons the document is refused registration". Hence the document is refused from registration under Section 71 of the Act. An appeal against this refusal order lies to the District Registrar, Patancheru @ Sangareddy, under Section 72 of Registration Act 1908 within (30) thirty days from the date of receipt of the Refusal Order. The refusal order has been passed by the undersigned on 72.09.2025. A copy of the refusal order will be granted to the party upon application to the undersigned. 5. Learned Senior Desionated Counsel aooearino on behalf of the Detitioners m inlv out-forth the followinq submissions: i). Referring to the instructions contained in the C&IG Mail dated 02.01.2006, it is stated in the refusal order that un-registered and adjudicated document shall not be treated as a Link document

ii). The refusal order further indicates that the pending document contains plot No.28, which has been divided into halves (which was purchased through Doc No.g297l19g4) and the same is contrary to the instructions contained in C&IG memo 5 No,G2l257/2019, dated 26.08.2020, wherein it is stated that "No new plot or sub-division shall be registered by the Registration per theAuthority unless it is approved by the authority as provisions of the Act" and hence the subject document had been refused for registration. provisions of the iii). Such refusal is contrary to the Registration Act, 1908 and also to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it its judgment dated 07.O4.2O25 passed in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrar and others, reported in 2O25 LiveLaw (sC) (402), refusing iv). Insofar as the second reason assigned for registration of the subject document is concerned there is no such restriction indicated even as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 No'35 of 2025 dated v). The impugned Refusal Order L2.09.2025 issued by the District Registrar of Patancheru at Sangareddy, is contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. n 6 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that there is a provision for an appeal against the said order impugned passed by the 3'd respondent dated 12.09.2025 and, therefore, the petitioners could avail the appeal. n l 0 7. i]

"15. 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 tatle, 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 1 civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 da ted 07.04.2025 7 th€ document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as nairated above, the document must be registered. The executaon 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.,, 8

2O19 and batch is extracted hereunder:_ "13. The power of the registering airthority 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 2L 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 By looking into a validity of the link document, the registeri ng authority is indirecfly verifying whether the executants of the respective docum ents are having valid title or not to execute the documents in question. As held in the above referred judgment in the case of Dn Yadla Ramesh Naidu (1 supra), 8 vendee nder the said d cument does n oet anv tatle over such propertv and mere reoastration of such propertv document will not have an effect on the which is the subiect 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 lioht of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hol that the sDondent isterino a orities are not entitled to refuse reoistration of a document on the oround that the link document referred to in the resoective 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.,,

9. This Court opines that the impugned two reasons as indicated in the refusat order No.35 of ZO2S dated 12.09,2025 issued by the 4th respondent are unreasonable, illogical, illegal since no such restrictions can be imposed even as per the provisions of the Registration Act, l9O8 and also as per the Law laid down 9 by this Court on the subiect issue. Hence this Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief in the present writ petition. 10. TAKI G INTO NSIDE ON: the (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of Gase, learned Senior (b) The submissions made by the Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, order (c) The contents of the impugned Refusal No.35 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025 (referred to and extracted above), 2O25 (d) The Apex Court judgment reported in LiveLaw (SC) (4O2) passed an K.Gopi Vs. The Sub Registrar (referred to and extracted above)' in (e) The Judgment dated 11.O1.2023 passed andW.P.No.1531O of 2019 and batch, (referred to 1 extracted above), conclusion as arrived at para (f) The discussion and Nos.7 to 9 of the Present order. l0 The writ Detition is diso ed of darectinq the Resoondent Authoritv to receive and reqister the sale deed P.No.775 of 2O25 dated 20.O8.2O25 oresented bv the petitioners in resoect of Prooertv part of plot bearino No.28. Admeasurino 333.O0 Square vards or eouivalent to

278.42 Souare meters, (Out of 556.00 Souare vards.l, in Sv.No.220, situa d at Patiohanaooor Vil aqe, Panta cheru Mandal. Sanoa Reddv District. Telanoana, (oreviouslv Patiohanaooor Villaoe, Taluka Sanqareddv, District, Medak). without reference to the imouoned Refusal Order No.35 of 2(J25. ated 12.09 .2O25 vide intimation Memo 4 5 n P.No.7 7512025. dated 20.08.2025 subie to the co dition of the said docu ent comolv nq with the orovisions of the Reqistration Act. 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1999. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/- M.VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner and lnsper:tor General of Registration and Stamps, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana. 3. The Districl Registrar, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana. 4. The Joint srb Registrar r, Ro (oB) patancheru, sanga Redcry District,\ Telangana * I 5. One CC to SRt K.HAR|SH KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCI 6' Two ccs to cp FoR srAMps & REGrsrRATroN, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad TOUTI 7. Two CD Copies PMK TKS HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 1810612026 RDER 1 9TATE q o WP.No.33669 of Z02S luNzo2B )o 25 o at t t I ocs.',n DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION HOUT COSTS r0

132s21 IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Ti F2 1. Sri. Kotha Suryaprakash Rao, S/o Sri Kotha Narayana, aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No. 1-83, Kokkireni, Khammam, Thirumalayapalem, Telangana. . 2. Sri. Shaik Yakub Pasha, S/o Fathe Mohammed, aged about 36 years, Occ Business, FUo H.No. 11-11-199111418, Joumalist Colony, Vikalangula, Colony Main Road, Khammam, Telangana. .PETITIONERS AND Revenue 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana. 3. The District Registrar, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana. Reddy District' 4. The Joint Sub Registrar l, RO (OB) Patancheru, Sanga Telangana. RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to set aside the Refusal Order No. 35 of 2025, daled 12-09-2025 vide intimation Memo No. 36412025, dated 16'09-2025, issued bythe 4th respondent in refusing the sale deed P.No.775l2025, dated 20-08-2025 presented by petitioners in respect of Property Part of Plot bearing No. 28, Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent lo 278.42 Square meters, (Out of 666.00 Square yards), in Sy.No. 220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Pantancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, Medak) by Direct Respondent No.4 to receive, to process for registering Sale Deed presented by the Petitioners in respect of Property Part of Plot bearing No. 28, Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent lo 278.42 Square meters. (Out of

666.00 Square yards), in Sy,No. 220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Pantancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, lVleclak), without the reference of the Memo No. 36412025, dated 16/09/2025 issued by Respondent No.4, and consequentlyto direct the 4th Respondent to receive, process to register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioner pertaining to the subject property. Petition under 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 pass orders by directing the 4th Respondent to receive, process to register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioner pertaining to the subject Property Part of Plot bearing No, 28, Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent to 278.42 Square meters, (Out of 666.00 Square yards), in Sy.No. 220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Pantancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, Medak), till pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI VEDULAVENKATA RAMANA SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI K.HARISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO.33669 OF 2025 DATED: 18.O5.2025 Between:

Sri Kotha Suryaprakash Rao and other ... Petitioners AND The State ofTelangana and 3 others. ..Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Designated Counse! representing, Sri K. Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on record and learned Government Pleader for Stamps. and Registration, appearing on behalf of the respondents. petataoners approached the Court seekinq Draver2. The as under: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to set aside the Refusal Order No.35 of 2025, dated L2.O9.2025 vide intimation Memo No.364/2025, dated 16.09.2025 issued by the 4th respondent in refusing the sale deed P,No.775/2O25, dated 2O.O8.2O25 presented by z petitioners in respect of Property Part of Plot bearing No.28, Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent to

278.42 Square meters, (Out of 666.00 Square yards), in Sy.No.220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Pantancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, Medak) by Dlrect Respondent No.4 to receive, to process for registering Sale Deed presented by the Petitioners in No.28, respect of Property Part of Plot bearing Admeasuring 333.00 Square yards or equivalent to 278.42 Square meters, (Out of 666.00 Square yards), in Sy.No.220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Patancheru lvlandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana, (previously Patighanapoor Village, Taluka Sangareddy, District, Medak), without the reference of the Memo No.364/2025, dated 16.09.2025 issued by Respondent No.4, and consequently to direct the 4th Respondent to receive, process to register and release the sale deeds presented by the petitioner pertaining to the subject property, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the clrcumstances of the above in the interests of justice and equity".

3 The case of the oetitioners in brief as oer the averments made in the affidavit faled bv the oetitioners an suDDort of the present Writ Petition is as under:-The petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of part of Plot No.2B, admeasuring 333 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.220, situated at Patighanapoor Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana, having acquired the same through a validated sale deed. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 and presented J the same for registration before the 4th respondent upon payment of requisite stamp duty and registration charges. However, the 4th respondent refused registration vide Refusal Order No.35 of 2025, dated 12.09.2025, on the ground that the validated document cannot be treated as a link document and that the subject property amounts to subdivision of Plot No.28. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4 The order imouqned rder No.35 ol 2fJ25 dated 12.O9.2O25 issued bv the District Reoistrar of Patancheru At Sanoareddv, is extracted hereunder:-It is hereby informed that the document executed on 20th August 2025 by Kotha Suryaprakash Rao S/o Kotha Narayana in favour of Shaik Yakub Pasha S/o Fateh Mohammad and presented before the undersigned and admitted as P.No.775 of 2025 on 20th May, 2025 has been refused registration for the following reasons.

"Thus in the registration of this pending document there are two points which are not complying with the Instructions contained in C&IG Mail Dt.02.01.2008 writ validated (un-registered and adiudicated) document not to be treated as a Lank Document. Second point is the pending document contains plot No.28 divided into half (which was purchased through Doct.8297 /1984) which is 4 against the instructions contained in C&IG Memo NO.G2/257/2019 Dt.26.08.2020 where it is stated that: "No new Dlot or sub-divis ion shall be reoistered bv Paaic+F.+i.rrr Arrlharilrr ..- acc i+ ic rnnr.^vad hrr }lra authority as oer the provisions of the Act. "Hence for these two reasons the document is refused registration". Hence the document is refused from registration under Section 71 of the Act. An appeal against this refusal order lies to the District Registrar, Patancheru @ Sangareddy, under Section 72 of Registration Act 1908 within (30) thirty days from the date of receipt of the Refusal Order. The refusal order has been passed by the undersigned on 72.09.2025. A copy of the refusal order will be granted to the party upon application to the undersigned. 5. Learned Senior Desionated Counsel aooearino on behalf of the Detitioners m inlv out-forth the followinq submissions: i). Referring to the instructions contained in the C&IG Mail dated 02.01.2006, it is stated in the refusal order that un-registered and adjudicated document shall not be treated as a Link document

ii). The refusal order further indicates that the pending document contains plot No.28, which has been divided into halves (which was purchased through Doc No.g297l19g4) and the same is contrary to the instructions contained in C&IG memo 5 No,G2l257/2019, dated 26.08.2020, wherein it is stated that "No new plot or sub-division shall be registered by the Registration per theAuthority unless it is approved by the authority as provisions of the Act" and hence the subject document had been refused for registration. provisions of the iii). Such refusal is contrary to the Registration Act, 1908 and also to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it its judgment dated 07.O4.2O25 passed in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrar and others, reported in 2O25 LiveLaw (sC) (402), refusing iv). Insofar as the second reason assigned for registration of the subject document is concerned there is no such restriction indicated even as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 No'35 of 2025 dated v). The impugned Refusal Order L2.09.2025 issued by the District Registrar of Patancheru at Sangareddy, is contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. n 6 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that there is a provision for an appeal against the said order impugned passed by the 3'd respondent dated 12.09.2025 and, therefore, the petitioners could avail the appeal. n l 0 7. i]

"15. 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 tatle, 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 1 civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 da ted 07.04.2025 7 th€ document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as nairated above, the document must be registered. The executaon 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.,, 8

2O19 and batch is extracted hereunder:_ "13. The power of the registering airthority 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 2L 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 By looking into a validity of the link document, the registeri ng authority is indirecfly verifying whether the executants of the respective docum ents are having valid title or not to execute the documents in question. As held in the above referred judgment in the case of Dn Yadla Ramesh Naidu (1 supra), 8 vendee nder the said d cument does n oet anv tatle over such propertv and mere reoastration of such propertv document will not have an effect on the which is the subiect 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 lioht of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hol that the sDondent isterino a orities are not entitled to refuse reoistration of a document on the oround that the link document referred to in the resoective 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.,,

9. This Court opines that the impugned two reasons as indicated in the refusat order No.35 of ZO2S dated 12.09,2025 issued by the 4th respondent are unreasonable, illogical, illegal since no such restrictions can be imposed even as per the provisions of the Registration Act, l9O8 and also as per the Law laid down 9 by this Court on the subiect issue. Hence this Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief in the present writ petition. 10. TAKI G INTO NSIDE ON: the (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of Gase, learned Senior (b) The submissions made by the Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, order (c) The contents of the impugned Refusal No.35 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025 (referred to and extracted above), 2O25 (d) The Apex Court judgment reported in LiveLaw (SC) (4O2) passed an K.Gopi Vs. The Sub Registrar (referred to and extracted above)' in (e) The Judgment dated 11.O1.2023 passed andW.P.No.1531O of 2019 and batch, (referred to 1 extracted above), conclusion as arrived at para (f) The discussion and Nos.7 to 9 of the Present order. l0 The writ Detition is diso ed of darectinq the Resoondent Authoritv to receive and reqister the sale deed P.No.775 of 2O25 dated 20.O8.2O25 oresented bv the petitioners in resoect of Prooertv part of plot bearino No.28. Admeasurino 333.O0 Square vards or eouivalent to

278.42 Souare meters, (Out of 556.00 Souare vards.l, in Sv.No.220, situa d at Patiohanaooor Vil aqe, Panta cheru Mandal. Sanoa Reddv District. Telanoana, (oreviouslv Patiohanaooor Villaoe, Taluka Sanqareddv, District, Medak). without reference to the imouoned Refusal Order No.35 of 2(J25. ated 12.09 .2O25 vide intimation Memo 4 5 n P.No.7 7512025. dated 20.08.2025 subie to the co dition of the said docu ent comolv nq with the orovisions of the Reqistration Act. 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1999. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/- M.VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner and lnsper:tor General of Registration and Stamps, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana. 3. The Districl Registrar, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana. 4. The Joint srb Registrar r, Ro (oB) patancheru, sanga Redcry District,\ Telangana * I 5. One CC to SRt K.HAR|SH KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCI 6' Two ccs to cp FoR srAMps & REGrsrRATroN, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad TOUTI 7. Two CD Copies PMK TKS HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 1810612026 RDER 1 9TATE q o WP.No.33669 of Z02S luNzo2B )o 25 o at t t I ocs.',n DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION HOUT COSTS r0