Telangana High Court
Ramanaiah Koduru vs The State Of Telangana on 27 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.24132 of 2026
DATE: 27.07.2026
Between:
Ramanaiah Koduru
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana & 2 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking an order in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in
issuing intimation of Refusal vide Refusal Order No.70 of 2025,
dated 08.01.2026, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently
direct the respondent No.3 to register and release the Sale Deed
(P 1323/2025) dated 27.12.2025 presented by the petitioner in
respect of Plot No.238 in Block-G, admeasuring 300 Sq.yards, in
Sy.No.364 of Tellapur Village, Tellapur Municipality,
Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, without
reference to Refusal Order No.70 of 2025, dated 08.01.2026.
2
2. Heard Mr.Akash Reddy, learned counsel representing
Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms.S.Sravanthi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the
common order dated 18.02.2026 passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.2923 and 2836 of 2026, wherein, this Court, by relying
upon the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Gopi
v. The Sub-Registrar 1 and also the common order dated
11.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch, allowed
both the Writ Petitions by way of a common order. Learned
counsel, thus, prayed this Court to pass similar order in the
instant case as well. The same is not seriously disputed by the
learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration
appearing for the respondents.
4. In this regard, it is pertinent to extract relevant portion of
the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.01.2023,
which states as under:
1
2025 SCC online SC 740
3“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
Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, the
registering authorities are not entitled to refuse registration of
a document on mere ground that the title of the executants of
the respective document is based upon the validated
document, though the same is compulsorily registerable
4document cannot be accepted and such a ground is not
available to the registering authorities to refuse registration of
a document on that ground.
…
19. In the light of the above, this Court is unhesitant to hold
that the respondent registering authorities are not entitled to
refuse registration of a document on the ground that the link
document referred to in the respective document is a validated
document or to refuse registration of such document by placing
reliance on endorsement, dated 02.01.2008, issued by the
Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and
Registration. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the
respective Writ Petitions are set aside and Writ Petitions are
allowed with a further direction to the respondent registering
authorities to receive the returned documents and to process
the same subject to the condition of the said documents
complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908
and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.”
5. Further, in K.Gopi‘s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:
“The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the
executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the
executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale
deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has
no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the
document if all the procedural compliances are made and the
necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are
paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act,
it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering
Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the
5property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering
authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are
present before him and the parties admit execution thereof
before him, subject to making procedural compliances as
narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution
and registration of a document have the effect of transferring
only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the
executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the
registered document cannot effect any transfer.
6. In view of the order in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch
dated 11.01.2023 as well as the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in K. Gopi‘s case (cited supra) and for the
reasons mentioned therein, this Writ Petition is allowed and the
impugned Intimation of Refusal Order No.70/2025, dated
08.01.2026, is hereby set aside and the respondent authorities
are directed to receive, register and release the documents
bearing P.No.1323/2025, dated 27.12.2025 presented by the
petitioner in respect of the subject property, subject to the
condition that the said document complies with the provisions of
the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________
JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Dt.27.07.2026
ysk
