ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in refusing to register the Settlement Deed which was received and initially numbered as P No.261 of 2021 for the value of Rs.1,11,81,000/- dated 25.06.2021 executed by the petitioner in favour of her daughter Kamatham Prema by collecting registration fee in respect of the property situated in D.No.3/1330, having assessment no.1014015468, ward No.3 in Sy.No.357, in T.B.Road, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents out of the 1/3rd share of the petitioner which she got out of 0.91 cents as illegal and arbitrary and in violative of the Provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the A.P. rules under the Registration Act apart from violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to receive the document bearing no.P.No.261/2021, dt.02.07.2021 and register the same and pass such other orders or orders."

2. The 4th respondent-Joint Sub Registrar, vide refusal order No.33 pending file No.261 of 2021, the property situated in Ward No.3 of Proddatur Municipality belonging to D.No.3/1330 in Sy.No.357 of Proddatur village of an extent of Ac.0.06 cents was refused to registration on the ground that on going through the documents presented by the writ petitioner, i.e., viz., final decree passed by the Court of District Judge, Kadapa, in O.P.No.139 of 1991 and the registered Will No.10 of 1989, observing that the said documents are far of true and then not substantiated the right of the petitioner herein, and alluding in the above said manner, has refused to register the document.

3. The said refusal order is impugned in the present Writ Petition on the legal point that as per the terms of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar cannot refuse the document and he cannot conduct a roving enquiry and he cannot refuse to register the document unless it is prohibited under Sections 19, 20, 21, 22A and 34 of the Registration Act (for short, „the Act?). Section 19 of the Act contemplates that if any document duly presented for registration, be in a language which the registering officer does not understand, and which is not commonly used in the district, he shall refuse to register the documents, unless it be accompanied by a true translation into a language commonly used in the district and also by a true copy. Section 20 of the Act contemplates that if the document which is presented for registration in which any interlineations, blank, eraser or alteration appears, unless the persons executing the document attest with their signatures or initials such interlineations, blank, eraser or alteration. Section 21 of the Act contemplates that the document shall contain maps and plans and when the document is opposed to public policy, the Registrar can refuse for registration under Section 23 of the Act. Section 34 of the Act contemplates that the Sub Registrar can refuse to register the document unless the persons executing such document or their representative, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under Sections, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the Act. Under the above said circumstances, the Sub Registrar can refuse to register the document. Hence, the petitioner would contend that the Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register the document in the present Writ Petition and he prayed to set aside the impugned refusal order and consequently, prayed to direct the Sub Registrar to register the document.

4. The facts of the present case are like this:

One Vempalli Mopuru Subba Reddy is having two wives and the first wife?s name is Narayanamma and through Narayanamma, he gave birth to one Vempalli Subba Reddy and the said