SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 615

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.
Smt. M. Radhika Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, - Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.5821 of 2024
Decided on : 05-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M DAMODAR REDDY
For the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE

IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that without evidence of demand for registration and refusal, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, emphasizing compliance with statutory duties under the Indian Registration Act.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Section 71 - Writ petition seeking to declare the refusal of registration of a sale deed as illegal - The petitioner, claiming ownership, presented a sale deed for registration, which was refused without reason - The court emphasized the duty of the Sub-Registrar to record reasons for refusal under Section 71 - The petitioners failed to provide evidence of their attempts to register the deed, thus the court could not infer refusal - The court ruled that the petitioners must present the documents for registration, and the Sub-Registrar must comply with statutory duties. (Paras 5, 8, 9)

(B) Mandamus - The well-established rule requires the applicant to show evidence of demand and refusal - The court reiterated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued without proof of a mandatory duty being unmet. (Paras 8)

Facts of the case:

The petitioner sought registration of a sale deed for property not listed in the prohibitory list, claiming ownership and peaceful possession, but faced refusal from the Sub-Registrar.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the petitioners did not demonstrate that they made a demand for registration that was met with refusal, thus denying the writ petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could infer refusal by the respondent without documentary proof of their registration attempts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without evidence of demand and refusal, the petitioners could not compel registration, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with Section 71 of the Act.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.Farhan Azam Khan, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

    “to declare the action of the respondents in not accepting the sale deed in respect of the Plot No.244, in Sy.No.236, admeasuring 200 sq.yds., situated at Manikonda Jagir Village and Municipality, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District though the said property is not included in the prohibitory list as prepared under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 and though the above property is not part of any Wakf property, as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the respondent No.4 to register the document presented by the petitioner for the aforesaid subject property.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the subject property and due to domestic needs and dire necessary of money, the petitioner intends to sell the subject property, in this regard petitioner presented sale deed document before respondent No.4 for registration in favour of third party, however respondent No.4 refused to entertain the documents for registration without assigning any reason. Learned counsel further submits that it is duty bound on the part of the respondent No.4 to register, receive and release the subject documents and if respondent No.4 is not registering the subject documents, the respondent No.4 shall assign reasons for refusal.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that petitioner has never approach before the office of the Registering Authority for registration of the subject document.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration fairly stated that if the petitioner approaches Respondent Authority for registration of the subject property, the respondent authority will receive and process the subject documents, subject to petitioner complying with all the relevant documents or otherwise the Registering Authority will pass refusal order by following section 71 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. the respondent authority will receive and process the subject documents, subject to petitioner complying with all the relevant documents or otherwise the Registering Authority will pass refusal order by following section 71 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. the respondent authority will receive and process the subject documents, subject to petitioner complying with all the relevant documents or otherwise the Registering Authority will pass refusal order by following section 71 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

7. In similar circumstances this Court in Deverneni Linga Rao Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapallu, 1999 SCC Online AP 435:(1999) 3AP LJ 204:(1999) 6 ALD144:(1999)6 ALT 599, passed a detailed order, wherein the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

    “In my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is well founded. The petitioners did not produce any documentary proof in support of their averment that they have presented the sale deeds to the respondent for registration, but he has refused to register the same. They could not even mention the date on which they had approached the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult to accept their statement, more so when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent in his counter. At this juncture it is appropriate to note that under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short "the Act") the Sub-Registrar is bound to record reasons for his refusal. The said section is as under:

    "Sec. 71, Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded:-- (1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top