Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
P. Naveen Rao, J.
T. Ganesh —Petitioner
versus
State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.26137, 22303, 26207 and 26236 of 2019
Decided on 23.1.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sri A.Venkatesh, counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.26137, 26207 and 26236 of 2019; Sri Krishna Mohana Sikharam, counsel for petitioners in W.P.No.22303 of 2019
For the Respondents: Govt. Pleader for Revenue
IMPORTANT POINT
Role of Registering Authority is to process the document presented before him for registration in accordance with Indian Stamp Act 1899 and Indian Registration Act, 1908—While processing document, it is not open to him to go into minute details on title to property or other aspects of transaction.
Headnote:
(A) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 read with Section 49 – Registration of a document – Role of Registering Authority is to process the document presented before him for registration in accordance with Indian Stamp Act 1899 and Indian Registration Act, 1908 – While processing document, it is not open to him to go into minute details on title to property or other aspects of transaction – He has to scrutinize the document as per provisions of Stamp Act, Registration Act, Registration Rules and Standing Orders – His role is confined to authentication of a transaction between two parties present before him – He is not concerned with sanctity of the said transaction – In view of Section 17 read with Section 49 of Registration Act, any transaction on immovable property whose value is Rs.100/- and more has no legal validity if it is not registered – By virtue of registration of a document, world is informed that two parties to transaction are bound by terms of document – If transaction relates to a landed property and is a deed of conveyance it would be amounting to vendor accepting conveyance of right vested in him on property to vendee. (Para 9)
(B) Registration Act,1908 – Section 17 read with Section 49 – Registration of a document – When a property is subject matter of a case pending before competent Court and such Court passed restraint order, no transactions should be permitted to frustrate the litigation and affect rights of a party to litigation – It would also prevent vexatious litigation and third party claims – Registering Authority has no role in a dispute between two parties on a landed property and parties are free to agitate/resolve their disputes in court of law – Registering Authority cannot even be a proforma party to a civil litigation where no relief is sought against him – No declaration can be sought against him – He is only required to discharge his statutory function vested in him under Registration Act while processing a document presented before him – He does not assess validity of claims of parties to document – His role is limited to verifying compliance of Stamp Act and Registration Act to document presented before him. (Paras 14 and 15)
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P. Naveen Rao, J.—Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.26137, 26207 and 26236 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as counsel for petitioners), and Sri Krishna Mohana Sikharam learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.No.22303 of 2019/ respondent no.3 in W.P.Nos.26137, 26207 and 26236 of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as counsel for respondent), and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents.
2. In W.P.Nos.26137, 26207, 26236 of 2019 petitioners are aggrieved by action of registering authority in not registering and receiving the sale deeds dated 01.08.2018, each for Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.133 of Kothwalguda village. In W.P.No.22303 of 2019, petitioners are opposing release of pending documents concerning land in Sy.Nos.130, 131 and 133 of Kothwalguda village. In W.P.Nos.26137, 26207, 26236 of 2019 land to an extent of Acs.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.133 of Kothwalguda village is only in issue.
3. Facts as averred by petitioners in W.P.Nos.26137, 26207, 26236 of 2019 would disclose, the petitioners purchased Ac.1.00 guntas each in Survey No.133, situated in Kothwalguda Village, Kavvaguda Gram Panchayat, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District through Respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 is the owner of the land and respondent No.4 is holding power of attorney executed by respondent no.3. Accordingly, sale deeds with respect to such sale on individual extents of land executed by Respondent No.4 were presented before the Sub Registrar, Shamshabad/ Respondent No.2 for registration and release of the said documents. These Writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent no.2 in registering and releasing the sale deeds dated 01.08.2018 executed between the petitioners and their vendors.
4.1. According to learned counsel for petitioners the action of Respondent No.2 in refusing to register the document on the ground that O S No. 1260 of 2017 is filed in the Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge RR District at L.B. Nagar by Respondent No. 3 praying to cancel Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession dated 17.09.2014 executed in favour of respondent no.4 as illegal; would amount to arbitrary exercise of power and authority.
4.2. According to learned counsel, there was no interlocutory order of restraint against registration of deed of conveyance in the said suit at the time of presentation of the documents that could have impeded the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of petitioners. He would further urge that the Hon’ble XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge RR District at L.B. Nagar granted interlocutory orders of status quo, to be maintained by the parties, on 12.6.2019 whereas the said Sale Deed dated 01.08.2018 was executed prior to the interlocutory order of 12.06.2019. He would submit that based on a caution notice/legal notice dated 01.08.2018 issued to Respondent No.2 by Respondent No.3, documents could not have been refused for registration and release the said Sale Deeds. Even the interlocutory order only applies to protection of the property by both the parties until the disposal of the suit.
4.3. It is further contended that as the Registering Authority is not a party to the suit, the injunction order dated 12.6.2019 in I A No. 1324 of 2017 is not binding on the Registering Authority and therefore, the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the documents presented before him on the ground that injunction order is operating.
4.4. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:
Thummalachetty Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration and Ors., MANU/AP/0582/2008; Tirumala Venkata Reddaiah Chowdary and others Vs Potla Krishna Prasad and others, MANU/AP/0852/2008; Kaliaperumal Vs Rajagopal and another, (2009) 4 SCC 193; Parasa Nagamalleswara Rao Vs The Sub Registrar, Eluru and another, WP 4099 and 4229 of 2013 dt 12.2.2013; and Unio
