Telangana High Court
Muthamma vs The Sub Registrar on 10 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.5250 OF 2026
Dated 10th July, 2026
Between:
Muthamma and others
... Petitioners
AND
The Sub Registrar, Champapet,
Ranga Reddy District and others
... Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“… declaring that the action of the 1st respondent contained in the
endorsement bearing Lr.No.410/Docts/2025, dated 08.12.2025 taking
the view that the subject Development Agreement-cum-General Power of
Attorney dated 05.12.2025 is to be registered treating it as a sale is
arbitrary, illegal and ultra virus the provisions of the Contract Act and
the Registration Act and hence the letter dated 08.12.2025 be set aside
and direction be issued to the 1st respondent to forthwith register and
release the document captioned as Development Agreement-cum-
General Power of Attorney dated 05.12.2025 relating to the subject land
2420 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.70 and 85 of Jalpally village, Balapur Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District and release the document after due registration
and grant such relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
2) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the document
captioned as ‘Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney’
dated 05.12.2025 executed by the Agreement of Sale (with possession)-
cum-General Power of Attorney Holders of petitioners 1 to 9 herein was
presented for registration before respondent No.1 and vide impugned
endorsement dated 08.12.2025 respondent No.1 has opined that the
subject document i.e. Development Agreement-cum-General Power of
Attorney cannot be registered unless the same is treated as a sale by
itself as per Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act. Questioning the
same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3) Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel,
representing M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, for the petitioners, and learned
Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the
respondents.
4) Learned senior counsel has submitted that petitioners 10 and 11
are lawful Agreement of Sale (with possession)-cum-General Power of
Attorney holders vide registered document No.9410 of 2006 dated
28.04.2006, entered with the owners i.e. petitioners 1 to 9, in respect of
large extent of land and under the said document, petitioners 1 to 9 have
conferred all the powers to petitioners 10 and 11 even to execute and
register sale deeds for and on behalf of petitioners 1 to 9. In exercise of
3 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
such power, petitioners 10 and 11 have executed the subject document
i.e. Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated
05.12.2025 in favour of M/s.Drishti Homes by which the development
rights, agreement of sale and the power of attorney are all included.
Therefore, the impugned endorsement is neither legally acceptable nor
factually correct. When once the owner/principal has parted with all his
rights in favor of a General Power of Attorney holder in the document
captioned as ‘Agreement of Sale (with possession)-cum-General Power of
Attorney’ with power to sell, there is no requirement of the principal
executing another document in exclusion of the appointed General Power
of Attorney. Hence, the holders of Agreement of Sale (with possession)-
cum-General Power of Attorney document vide document No.9410/2006
dated 28.04.2006 i.e. petitioners 10 and 11 are fully competent to
execute the subject document, which is refused for registration on
erroneous grounds. Therefore, the action of respondent No.1 in not
registering the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney
is not sustainable under the law and the Sub-Registrar has no authority
of law to go into the merits of the document and the only requirement of
law is to accept the document and register unless the property, which is
the subject matter of the document, is in the prohibited list maintained
under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. Since there is no such
reason in the impugned endorsement, the same is wholly illegal,
4 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
arbitrary and ultra vires of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908
and therefore the learned senior counsel prays this Court to allow the
writ petition by setting aside the impugned endorsement. Reliance has
been placed on Chief Revenue Controlling Officer cum Inspector
General of Registration v. P. Babu 1.
5) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted
that the petitioners have presented a document captioned as
‘Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney’ dated
05.12.2025 in respect of the subject property i.e. 2420 Sq. Yards in
survey Nos.70 and 85 situated at Jalpally Village, Balapur Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District. On examination of the contents of the
principal/link document i.e. Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power
of Attorney, it was noticed that there is no mention of further
delegation of powers of the Principals to the Attorneys as required
under Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Further, as per
the recitals of the subject document, the share of the owner is 10%
and share of the developer is 90% (i.e. the owner has transferred
90% to the developer). In other words, towards an extent of 2420
Sq. Yards, the acceptance of 242 Sq. Yards developed land and
Rs.20 lakhs towards goodwill by the owner is nothing but
1
Civil Appeal
5 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
consideration for transfer of 90% share to the developer. Learned
Government Pleader has contended that as per Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Agreement of Sale-cum-General
Power of Attorney does not create any right over the property. In
the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one
hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered
instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible
immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer,
or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
Further, a registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA is an enforceable
contract for specific performance and it does not by itself transfer
ownership/title of immovable property and a contract for sale of
immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall
take place on terms settled between the parties and the same itself
does not create any interest or charge on such property. Therefore,
respondent No.1 has classified the subject document as a sale and
chargeable under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899, and the impugned endorsement of respondent No.1
dated 08.02.2025 is issued within the purview of the provisions of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and Registration Act, 1908. Learned
6 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
Government Pleader has further contended that the Agreement of
Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney relied upon by the petitioners
relates to a total extent of 3,19,077 square yards of land. As per
the prevailing government guidelines the total market value of the
said property comes to about Rs.2,23,35,39,000/- (i.e. @
Rs.7,000/- per square yard). If the said property is to be
transferred through a regular sale deed, the applicable stamp duty
at 7.6% would amount to Rs.16,97,48,964/- under the provisions
of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, the petitioners’
predecessor’s document namely the Agreement of Sale-cum-
General Power of Attorney was registered by paying only a fixed
stamp duty of Rs.50,000/-. In such circumstances, permitting the
petitioners to directly register the Development Agreement-cum-
General Power of Attorney based on the said AGPA, without first
executing and registering a proper Sale Deed would effectively
enable the parties to circumvent payment of stamp duty legally
payable on conveyance, thereby resulting in substantial leakage of
legitimate revenue to the State exchequer running into several
crores of rupees. Therefore, the action of respondent No.1 in
insisting upon proper classification of the document and payment
7 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
of appropriate stamp duty is strictly in accordance with law.
Hence, the learned Government Pleader prayed this Court to vacate
the interim order passed by this Court on 22.04.2026 and dismiss
the Writ Petition. Reliance has been placed on (1) Arjun Sitaram
Nitinwar v. Rama Sakharam Parad 2 and (2) M.S.
Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula ETC 3.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by
respective counsel and perused the record.
7) On a perusal of the record, it is found that the Agreement of
Sale-cum-GPA dated 28.04.2006 was executed by petitioners 1 to 9
in favour of petitioners 10 and 11, relevant portion of the said GPA
dated 28.04.2006 reads as under:
“15. THAT the Vendors/Executants hereby appoint,
nominate and constitute the Vendees herein i.e., 1. Mr. Jaffer
Bin Abdullah Balala son of Late Mr. Abdullah Bin Ahmed
Balala, aged about 34 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of
House No.22-6-270, Knonche Naseem, Machli Kaman,
Hyderabad, A.P., 2. Mr. B. Venkatesh son of Mr. B. Mallesh,
aged about 32 years, Occupation: Business, Resident of House
No.10-3-311/3/2, Castle Hills, Road No.2, Beside N.M.D.C.,
Hyderabad, A.P., as their true and lawful General Power of
Attorney to do the following acts, deeds and things in the name2 2014 (2) Mh.L.J
3
(2025) 10 SCC 596
8 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
and on behalf of the Vendors/Executants, in respect of
abovesaid scheduled property sold to the Vendees.
a) TO sell, lease, mortgage the said Schedule Property and
for such purpose to executed any deed or deeds
including Sale Deed etc., to present the same for
registration in the concerned Registration Offices and to
deliver the possession of the said schedule property to
the prospective purchaser on behalf of the
Vendors/Executants herein.
b) TO enter in to any Agreement and to make any
application, plans, declarations, petitions, and to
develop, sale and enter in to development Agreement in
which ever manner he wants, and to represent the
Vendors/Executants in all the State, and Central
Government Offices, M.C.H., in respect of the said
Schedule Property.
c) THAT the said Vendees/Attornies are authorised to
appoint any Advocate/s and if necessary to file any
petitions, affidavits revisions, etc., in a Court of law if
necessary for carrying out the purpose of appointment
hereby made.
d) TO commence carry on or defend all actions and other
proceedings concerning to the said scheduled property
and top settle compromise or to submit to arbitrations
suits relating to the above purpose.
e) TO appear and act before all authorities including
Government Offices, Revenue Offices, Courts, etc., and
to sign, verify and file plaints, representations etc. and
appoint any third person as substitute/agent in the
name and on behalf of the Vendors/Executants in
respect of the said schedule property and all other
petitions before any tribunal court and to present and
execute all papers and documents before any authority
at all times in respect of the said property.
9 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
f) AND Generally the Vendees/Attornies are authorized to
do all the acts, deeds and things in respect of the
schedule property which are not specifically mentioned
in the Deed and which are necessary to be done or
cause to be done, in the name of Vendors/Executants
and on his behalf. And the Vendors/Executants hereby
agreed to ratify and confirm the same, and it shall be
deemed and treated as if done by the
Vendors/Executants personally.”
8) From the above, this Court nowhere finds recitals of further
delegation of powers of the principals (petitioners 1 to 9) to the
Attorneys (petitioners 10 and 11) as required under Section 37 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which provision of law reads as
under:
“An agent entrusted with specific duties cannot travel
those duties to another without explicit authorizations.”
9) Further, as per the subject document i.e. Development
Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 05.12.2025, the
share of the owner is 10% and the share of the developer is 90%,
which the owner has entrusted. In other words, out of an extent of
2420 Sq. Yards, the owner has accepted 242 Sq. Yards developed
land and Rs.20,00,000/- cash towards good will and the same
amounts to transfer of 90% share in the land to the developer. As
such, the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney vide
10 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
document No.9410/2006 dated 28.04.2006 does not create any
rights over the property as the said agreement dated 28.04.2006
does not meet the requirement of Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, to transfer the 90% share to the developer.
10) For better appreciation of the matter, Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which defines sale, is extracted
hereunder:
“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or
promised or part-paid and part-promised.”
11) This Court deems it relevant to refer that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M.S. Ananthamurthy (referred supra) has
held as under:
47. It is a settled law that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale
can only be by a deed of conveyance. An agreement to sell is not a conveyance.
It is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of property and does not
confer ownership right or title. In Suraj Lamp [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.
(2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2012) 340
ITR 1 : (2012) 169 Comp Cas 133] this Court had reiterated that an agreement
to sell does not meet the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TPA to
effectuate a “transfer”.
48. From the independent reading of the PoA and the agreement to sell, the
submissions of the appellants fail on two grounds, first, the PoA is general in
nature and does not secure agent’s right in the subject-matter of the agency,
and secondly, an agreement to sell simpliciter does not confer ownership in the
immovable property so as to transfer a better title to anyone else.
11 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
(iii) Combined reading of the general power of attorney and the
agreement to sell
49. The issue at hand may also be looked at from another angle. The
appellants have submitted that that since the GPA and the agreement to sell
were executed by the same person in favour of the same beneficiary, it ought to
have been read together.
56. The practice of transferring an immovable property vide a GPA and
agreement to sell has been discouraged by the following observations of this
Court in Suraj Lamp [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana,
(2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2012) 340 ITR 1 : (2012) 169
Comp Cas 133] . The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: (SCC
p. 667, para 24)
“24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and
lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance.
Transactions of the nature of “GPA sales” or “SA/GPA/will transfers” do not
convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or
valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such
transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they
neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They
cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of
Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or
made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is
stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to
freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be
validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time
that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions
known as GPA sales.”
(emphasis supplied)
12) For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs and in the
light of the above legal position, this Court does not see any merit in the
writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
12 PK, J
wp_5250_2026
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall
stand closed. No costs.
______________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 10-07-2026
sur
