##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION No.8987 OF 2026

26^th MARCH, 2026.

Between:

Dadireddy Venkata Subba Reddy …Petitioner

AND The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department,

Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and (3) others. … Respondents

ORDER :

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is

taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue General (Stamps

and Registration), appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned Refusal Order No.21/2025 dated 11.11.2025 in respect of the sale deed

2

presented by the petitioner and pending as Pending No.132/2025, relating to Plot No.272 admeasuring 200 square yards (167.2 square meters) and Plot No.294 admeasuring 200 square yards (167.2 square meters), total admeasuring 400 square yards (334.4 square meters), situated in Sector ‘C’ of “Sai Nagar” in Survey Nos.255, 261, and 264, at Aushapur Village, Ghatkesar Municipality, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, as being illegal and arbitrary, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to set aside the said Refusal Order and to direct

respondent No.4 to register the said sale deed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 and also the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrar1 and

requested to pass similar order in this writ petition.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration has not disputed the submission made by the

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740

3

learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has not submitted the document before the respondents and if they submit the document, they have to consider the same subject to compliance of the provisions of

the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

6. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.16310 of

2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023 is as under:

13. The power of the registering authority to refuse registration is only, if any of the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules made thereunder in particular Sections 19, 20, 21, 22-A, 34, 35 and rule 58 of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, are existing in respect of any such document presented for the registration. Except, the grounds or objections that are enumerated under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering authorities have no authority to refuse registration of a document on any other ground. As already noted above, the ground on which the impugned refusal orders in all these batch of Writ Petitions are passed is that the link document shown in the respective documents is a validated and an unregistered document. By looking into a validity of the link document, the registering authority is indirectly verifying whether the executants of the respective documents are having valid title or not to execute the documents in question. As held in the above referred judgment in the case of Dr. Yadla Ramesh Naidu (1 supra), the registering authority is not entitled to go into the title of the parties to the document. It is a settled law that the vendee under a document will not get a better title than his vendor and in case if vendor is not having a valid title over the property which is the subject matter of a particular document, the vendee under the said document does not get any title over such property and mere registration of such document will not have an effect on the property which

is the subject matter of the said document.

14. As rightly conceded by the learned Governme