The petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring the registration of document No.1350/2008 on 23.02.2008 by 4th respondent/Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Office of the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, as without jurisdiction, illegal and contrary to Sections 24 an 34 of the Registration Act (for short the Act) and consequently invalidate registration of document No.1350/2008 i.e., agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable power of attorney.

The circumstances leading to issue between parties are not in serious dispute, but the legal effect of these circumstances is the issue for consideration.

The petitioners claim right and title to the property in an extent of Ac.01-37 gts in Sy.No.54/2 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and an extent of Ac.3-22 gts in Sy.No.56 of Hafeezpet Village. Through registered sale deed dated 02.12.2006, the petitioners purchased the property from B.V. Rama Devi. The petitioners claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the petition land. On 03.01.2008, the petitioners claim to have obtained release deed (document No.73/2007) from the members of Nimmala family for the survey numbers referred to above. The cause of action in the writ petition is that on 28.02.2007, the family members of Nimmala executed agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney in favour of respondent Nos.23 to 25.

On 03.05.2007, the document was presented for registration before the 4th respondent. The document was kept pending till 23.02.2008. It is further stated that respondent Nos.13 and 21 were not present for completing registration within the time stipulated by law.

On 12.02.2008, the 13th respondent presented for registration and on 21.02.2008, Respondent No.21 presented for registration. On 23.02.2008, agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable power of attorney was registered by the 4th respondent as document No.1350/2008. The case of petitioners is that Sections 23, 24, 32 and 34 of the Act are mandatory and the 4th respondent has jurisdiction to register the document within the period of four months from the date of execution of the deed. Under Section 34, a further period of four months is available for presenting the document for registration. The execution of documents is admittedly on 28.02.2007. After the expiry of eight months period from the date of execution, the 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to permit respondent Nos.13 and 21 for registration. The registration on 23.02.2008 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioners contend that the property covered by document No.1350/2008 dated 23.02.2008 in favour of respondents 23 to 25 and the property claimed by the petitioners through the deeds referred to above is same. The petitioner as an interested person in the property assails the action of 4th respondent in registering document No.1350/2008.

Sri T.Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterated the contentions referred to above and also relied upon the decisions reported in THAYYIL MAMMO AND ANOTHER V. KOTTIATH RAMUNNI AND OTHERS and G.KADAMBARI V. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS.

The 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the document dated 23.02.2008 was presented on 03.05.2007 for registration by 14 executants as against 16 executants. The document was kept pending for want of presence of the remaining two executants. On 12.02.2008, one of the remaining executants presented for registration. Respondent No.21/16th executant presented the document for registration on 21.02.2008. The 2nd respondent admits that due to pressure of work and due to oversight the document was registered beyond the four months stipulated under the enactment. The said act of registration and release of document is due to oversight and work pressure. The further lapse admitted is that there is no reference to the District Registrar for condonation of delay. The connivance alleged to the official respondents is denied.

Respondents 23 to 25 filed counter-affid