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
(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:
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:
"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
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.
The refusal of a Sub-Registrar to register a document must follow statutory procedures and provide reasons, as mandated by the Registration Act, 1908.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.