The petitioners, who are minors, are represented by their mother and natural guardian. The petitioner’s mother, who had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that the petitioners succeeded to the property in question from their ancestors. While so, she states that the petitioners came to know that their father executed a registered sale agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 09.10.2008 in respect of the property in question in favour of respondent No.1, who on the strength thereof, is seeking to alienate the property in question. On coming to know of this, she states that the petitioners got issued paper publication dated 10.04.2008 cautioning the general public from entering into any sort of agreements with respondents No.1, and they also filed suit in O.S. No. 495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, seeking permanent injunction, and pending thereof, in I.A. No. 269 of 2008, they obtained interim injunction, and thereafter, approached respondent No.2, namely Sub Registrar, Gundala, requesting him not to entertain any sale deed in respect of the land in question, but they were informed by respondent No.2 that he has no right to stop the registration of sale deed for any property, except when there is a direction from the Court restraining him from entertaining any documents for registration in respect of the property covered by the proceedings before it. Hence, assailing the said action of respondent No.2, as being illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though respondent No.2 is not a party to the proceedings in O.S. No.495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, but having regard to the fact that there is an ad interim injunction order granted by the said Court in I.A. No. 269 of 2008 on 18.04.2008 in respect of the property in question, the same is binding on respondent No.2, and therefore, respondent No.2 cannot contend that since there is no direction to him, he has no power to stop registration of a document.

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that S.O. No. 219 of the A.P. Registration Manual, Prohibits the Registering Officer from entertaining documents for registration when there in an injunction order granted by the competent Civil Court or the High Court, but having regard to the fact that respondent No.2 is not a party to the suit in O.S. No. 495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, the order of interim injunction, granted by the said Court in I.A. No. 269 of 2008, is not binding on respondent No.2, and he is not under an obligation to stop registration of the property in question.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.2.

The transactions relating to transfer of immovable property is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908, while the title, capacity of the parties to transfer the property etc. are governed by different laws such as Law of Succession, Testamentary or otherwise, etc. The normal understanding of the general public is that once a document is registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 they get title to the property. But that is not so. The execution of or registration of a document by itself will not create any new title, and the execution of or registration of such document covering an immovable property is governed by the principle Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet, which means ‘no person can transfer/pass a better title than what he possess in the property so transferred’. Given the fact that transfer of an immovable property is governed by this principles, the registering authority when receives a document and registers it, does not decide title of the persons executing the document. The