The registration authority cannot refuse to register sale deeds based solely on pending civil litigation, as the authority lacks the adjudicatory power to determine title disputes.

JUDGMENT:

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

The present Appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.No.16139 of 2025 refusing to register 3 sale deeds presented by the appellants for the purpose of registration.

2. The Writ Petitioners before the learned Single Judge assailed the Refusal Orders vide (i) Refusal Order No.2 vide letter No.123/2025 dated 16.05.2025, (2) Refusal Order No.3/2025 vide letter No.124/2025 dated 16.05.2025 and (3) Refusal Order No.4/2025 vide letter No.125/2025 dated 16.05.2025, with a consequential direction to respondent No.4 to receive and register the three Sale Deeds in respect of the property bearing Plot Nos.693 and694 in Sy.No.174 admeasuring 420 sq. yards situated at Sai Surya Enclave, MachaBollaram, Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (for short ‘the Schedule Property’).

3. It is the case of appellants/petitioners that on 05.08.1997, Appellant No.3 purchased the schedule property from one Mogulla Kistamma and 7 others through their agent M/s.Ravi Shankar Real Estates under registered sale deed. Subsequently, on 15.05.2025 Appellant Nos.1 and 2 purchased the schedule property from appellant No.3 for valuable consideration of Rs.39,54,000/- under three separate documents and are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. In the month of August, 2017, one P.Maladri along with his henchmen tried to trespass into the schedule property. Appellant No.3, on coming to know that multiple sale deeds were created on the subject property, filed a complaint against P.Maladri, Ch.Srinu, Ch.Srinivasa Babji, K.Ram Gopal Reddy, Muthu Lakshmi, M.Meena and the same was registered as FIR No.638 of 2017 of Cyberbabad, P.S. Alwal, and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the said encroachers for the offences under Sections 416 , 427, 447, 464, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 IPC deleting the name of P.Maladri as his involvement in the matter of creation of false documents is not established and that he is an innocent buyer from accused Nos.2 and 3 viz., Sri Ch.Srinu and Sri Chilukuri Srinivas Babji, who are encroachers of the schedule property.

4. Upon coming to know of the fraud played, P.Maladri has entered into a settlement with the fraudsters Sri Chilukuri Srinivas Babji and after lodging of complaint by appellant No.3, agreed to take back the alleged sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- paid under the fabricated registered instrument and received a cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- out of Rs.21,00,000/-, and the said cheque was dishonoured. Then P.Maladri filed C.C.No.1517 of 2018 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal and gave up his rights over the schedule property.

5. Subsequently, P.Maladri filed O.S.No.427 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kushaiguda against appellant No.3 and three other fraudsters, who are alleged to be vendors of P.Maladri, for perpetual injunction, and the said suit was dismissed on 30.12.2024.

6. Appellant No.3 filed O.S.No.342 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Medchal-Malkajgiri against all fraudsters for cancellation of sale deed bearing Doc.No.845/2017dated 03.02.2017 and other documents. In O.S.No.342 of 2018. In the said suit, all defendants except P.Maladri remained exparte. P.Maladri filed written statement stating that his complicity in the matter of creation of sale deed is not established in the police investigation and that he filed the copy of charge sheet in CC No.940/2018 as document in