Telangana High Court
Naushad Ali And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 11 July, 2025
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ WRIT PETITION No.8489 of 2022
% Dated 11-07-2025
Between:
# Naushad Ali, S/o. late Ismail Ali and another
... Petitioners
and
$ The State of Telangana,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. J.Ramachandra Rao
^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. S. Ravi
< GIST : ---
>HEAD NOTE : ---
? Cases referred: :
1. (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 210
2. (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1
3. (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 767
NVSK, J
2 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P. No.8489 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioners are aggrieved by the Proceedings dated 26.06.2021 passed in Appeal No.2422 of 2021 by respondent No.3 and order Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 dated 20.03.2021 passed by respondent No.4. Further consequential prayer was sought to direct the respondents No.3 and 4 to receive and register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners in respect of the flats constructed in house property bearing Nos.6-l-286 and 6-1-286/A admeasuring 2200 square yards situated at Walker Town, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property').
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property having purchased the same from its original owners under a registered sale deed bearing document No.867 and 868 of 2017, dated 19.11.2014. Their further case is that they have executed a Development Agreement dated 11.09.2019 in favour of M/s. Vijetha Constructions. In pursuance to the said Development Agreement, GHMC granted permission on 08.08.2019 for construction of residential apartments consisting of One Cellar + Stilt + Five upper floors situated at Walker Town, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad vide Permit No.1/C30/12231/ 2019 dated 08.08.2019. Accordingly, the developer had constructed residential flats as per the sanctioned plan.
NVSK, J 3 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
3. While so, one Smt. Devika and three others have filed a suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad against the petitioners for declaration of title and recovery of possession however, no interim orders were passed in the said suit. Thereafter, the petitioners have sold all the flats to the respective purchasers and when the petitioners wanted to execute the sale deeds in favour of the respective purchasers, the Registering authorities i.e., respondents No.3 and 4, have refused to receive and register the sale deeds stating that the civil suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad is pending. It is further submitted that except the said suit, no suits are pending and there is no direction from any Court of law directing not to receive and admit the sale deeds. Questioning the action of the Registering authorities, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents No.1 to 4 has placed a copy of the written instructions issued by the respondent No.4, Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad, wherein it is stated that two Agreement of Sale- cum-General Power of Attorney deeds dated 27.02.2021 executed by the writ petitioners have been presented before the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad for registration. Both the documents were admitted for execution and kept pending as P.No.60 of 2021 and 61 of 2021 for scrutiny. On scrutiny of the documents, it is observed that in NVSK, J 4 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 preamble of the documents, it is recited that the link document Nos.867 of 2017 and 868 of 2017 both the documents are registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Secunderabad and these two link documents have got the origin of documents No.3867 of 1971 and 1525 of 1978 registered at the Registrar's Office, Hyderabad.
5. It is further submitted that a complaint was lodged at Nampally Police Station and FIR was booked vide No.265 of 2019 dated 08.11.2019 and an investigation is under process with respect to the origin Document Nos.3867 of 1971 and 1525 of 1978, which were tampered electronic and manual records in the District Registrar's Office, Hyderabad, relating to the instant pending document Nos.60 of 2021 and 61 of 2021 of Sub-Registrar Office, Secunderabad. Subsequently, Nampally Police Station has transferred the case to CCS Hyderabad and renumbered as 168/2020 and the CCS Hyderabad is inquiring into alleged crime. For the said reason, the pending document Nos.60/2021 and 61/2021 were refused vide Refusal order Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 and reasons for refusal to register were recorded in Book-II under Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908. A copy of the reasons recorded were served to the petitioner on 20.03.2021 informing that there is a remedy by way of an appeal before the District Registrar Hyderabad under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. Subsequently, the aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal before the District Registrar, Hyderabad on 19.04.2021 against aforesaid refusal orders of the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad in respect NVSK, J 5 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 of pending document Nos.P.60 and 61 of 2021. It is further submitted that the District Registrar, Hyderabad in view of the above facts and in order to stop further frauds on the basis of a fraudulently inserted forged document in the office records of the Registrar's Office, Hyderabad, which is a serious crime, observed that the action of the Sub-Registrar in refusing to register the subject document was well founded.
6. On behalf of the respondents No.5 to 8, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that they are the rightful owners of the properties in Municipal Nos.6-1-296, 6-1-288 A & B and 6-1-289, located at Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad, with a total area admeasuring 1682 square yards. It is submitted that the ownership of these properties was legally acquired by the respondents No.5 to 8 through Four registered sale deeds executed vide Documents No.202/2000, dated 07.03.2000, 203/2000, dated 07.03.2000, 711/2002, dated 15.06.2002 and 712/2002, dated 15.06.2002. However, they were unlawfully dispossessed from the said properties.
7. It is further submitted that under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908, petitioners have a remedy of appeal for orders passed under Section 71 or 72 or 76 and hence, the present writ petition is barred under law and the petitioners ought to have approached the District Court for any grievances with regards to the orders in appeal No.2422 of 2021 passed by the appellate authority and also Orders No.3 and 4 of 2021 dated 20.03.2021. It is further submitted that the NVSK, J 6 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 respondents No.5 to 8 became aware of a series of fraudulent claims that were unlawfully asserted against their clear and undisputed title to these properties and certain individuals, including the petitioners, have falsely and fraudulently claimed title to these properties by relying upon fictitious and fabricated sale deeds bearing documents No.867 and 868 of 2017 dated 19.11.2014, which are created with the mala fide intention to usurp the properties of respondents No.5 to 8. In the said circumstances, respondents No.5 to 8 have instituted a suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 before the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking a declaration of title, recovery of possession, cancellation of the fraudulent documents, and the grant of a permanent injunction along with other appropriate reliefs. In the said suit, three I.As. No.732, 733 and 734 of 2019 were filed by the respondents No.5 to 8 seeking various interim reliefs however, these I.As., were dismissed. Assailing the same, the respondents No.5 to 8 have preferred appeals in CMAs. No.129, 133 and 140 of 2022 dated 10.03.2022 before this Court, which are presently pending adjudication. During the pendency of the civil suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 and CMA Nos.129, 133 and 140 of 2022, petitioners have filed the present writ petition. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:
8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri J.Ramachandra Rao appearing for the petitioners would submit that it is the case of the petitioners that the Sub-Registrar vide refusal order Nos.3 and 4 of 202l dated NVSK, J 7 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 20.03.2021 has refused to register the documents submitted by the petitioners on the ground that the link document under which the petitioners are claiming title is the subject matter of police investigation. That the said documents viz,, document Nos.3867 of 1971 and No.1525 of 1978 in the Registrar Office of Hyderabad have been tampered with and the same were inserted in the electronic records and to that effect a criminal complaint has already been lodged and investigation is pending. As against the said refusal orders, the petitioners have preferred appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act and the said appeal was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.06.2021.
9. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioners claims to be the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property, which was earlier purchased from its original owners under registered sale deed bearing documents No.867 and 868 of 2017, dated 19.11.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners have executed a development agreement dated 11.09.2019 in favour of M/s. Vijetha Constructions and had obtained construction permission vide Permission No.1/C30/12231/2019 dated 08.08.2019 and accordingly made construction as per the plan. On 27.02.2021 when two sale agreements were presented by the petitioners for registration with regard to Apartment 204 and 402 in II and IV Floor respectively at Samruddi Residential Complex, these documents came to be refused vide refusal Memo endorsement No.03/2021 and 04/2021. Assailing NVSK, J 8 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 the same, petitioners preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2422 of 2021 before the District Registrar and the same came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 26.06.2021 holding the reason that the documents were refused for registration as the said property is listed in the prohibited properties list covered by the Court stay.
10. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that vide Lr.No.72/RTI/SEC-BAD/2021, dated 07.04.2021 of the Sub- Registrar, Secunderabad, the petitioner was informed that "The documents were refused for registration as the said property bearing H.No.6-1-286, 288 and 289, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad are listed in the prohibited properties list of this office covered by Court stay vide O.S. No.452/201 dated 11-10-2013 and O.S. No.516/2018 dated 25-09-2019."
11. Further, present status on the reference made by the Sub-Registrar is as follows:
"(I) OS 516 of 2018 was dismissed for default on 10-08-2022.
(II) OS 452 of 2013 was dismissed as withdrawn 08-02-2018 (This suit was filed against Vendors of Irrevocable GPA Doc.566 & 567/2013, the same was dismissed as withdrawn after a settlement between the LRs' of Christie Original owner of the subject property 6-1-286 with Vendors of Irrevocable GPA, as such the Irrevocable GPA was ratified by the conduct of the LRs', thus clearing the cloud on the title of the vendors of the writ petitioners herein."
NVSK, J 9 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
12. It is submitted that nothing survives now to refuse registration of the documents presented in compliance with the Registration Act by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant in FIR No.265/2019 has not protested the final report and the same has been accepted by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide Docket Order dated 28.07.2023, which reads as "Defacto complainant is present and reported no protest. Hence, the final report filed by the police is hereby accepted and office is directed to issue proceedings vide RC.No.02 of 2023."
13. It is further submitted that nothing in the document P-60 and P-61 presented before the Sub-Registrar has a reference to the Document No.3867 of 1971, which clearly states that the vendor is the sole and absolute owner and peaceful possessor of property bearing H.No.6-1-286, admeasuring 2200 sq.yds., equivalent to 1839.42 sq.mts., situated at Padmarao Nagar, Walker Town, Secunderabad having purchased the same from Sri Jototh Ramulu and others vide sale deeds dated 19.11.2017 registered at Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad. The Sub-Registrar claimed in his refusal note that the documents presented are based on Document No.3867/1971 and 1525/1978 which is incorrect, and it is settled principle that Sub-Registrar cannot go into the title of the documents presented. The entire litigation was started by the unofficial respondents No.5 to 8 who are hand in glove with the Sub-Registrar, NVSK, J 10 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 who refused the registration of the said documents unlawfully and also never took representations of the petitioners.
14. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the title of the respondents No.5 to 8, GPA Document No.225/1991, dated 18.03.1991 and the death certificate of principal to the GPA Executor dated 10.04.1997 and would submit that extinguished GPA has no force for making a sale agreement after the death of one of the principal executors of the GPA. The respondents No.5 to 8 filed an affidavit to the extent to claim title from fraudulent documents and also appealed the order of this Court in I.A. No.1 and 3 in W.P. No.8489 of 2022 while being imposters vide sale deeds 202/2000, 203/2000, 711/2002 and 712/2002. Adding to the fraudulent execution, the documents 711/2002 and 712/2002 shows that in the executor column Andrew Humphrey Christie came to the Sub-Registrar office and put his finger prints 5 years after his death, while replacing Joseph Philip photo against Andrew Humphrey Christie, Teresa Margarate Christie against Joseph Philip and Andrew Humphrey Christie against Teresa Margaret Christie.
15. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that this Court had passed an elaborate reasoned orders in I.A. Nos.1 and 3 in W.P. No.8489 of 2022, which was challenged by the respondents No.5 to 8 vide W.A. No.626 of 2022 and W.A. No.628 of 2022 were allowed by order dated 23.09.2022.
NVSK, J 11 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
16. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that W.As. No.626 and 628 of 2022 were challenged and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) 25760 - 25761 of 2023 passed an order dated 19.04.2024 and remanded the matter for consideration. The respondents No.5 to 8 argued that the Document No.3867/1971 claimed as inserted, however, the parties shown in the document No.3867/1971 neither petitioners are parties to the document nor signatories and petitioners were 6 years old in 1971 and no benefit is obtained by this document as such, there cannot be any allegation against the petitioners. As regards the Document No.1525/1978, the petitioners are neither parties to the document nor signatories and the petitioners were 11 years old in 1975 and no benefit is obtained by this document as such, there is no allegation against the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the registering authorities i.e. respondents No.1 to 4 in collusion with unofficial respondents 5 to 8, represented by their GPA holder had filed false report against the petitioners and refused to receive and register the sale agreements for registration and that the respondents No.5 to 8 are only proforma parties and the main contesting parties against whom the relief was sought for are District Registrar and the Sub-Registrar, who have not sought an appeal of the order passed in I.As. No.1 and 3 in W.P. No.8489 of 2022. Therefore, the impugned order is grossly erroneous, without jurisdiction and prayed this Court to suspend the impugned orders by allowing the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also filed copies of documents to substantiate title flow and NVSK, J 12 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 for better serving the arguments. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions referred to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs. S.P. Velayutham and others 1 and Veena Singh (Dead) through Legal Representative Vs. District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) and another 2. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 8:
17. The learned Senior Counsel Sri S.Ravi appearing for the respondents No.5 to 8 submitted that the petitioners initially filed the present writ petition seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 and 4 in refusing to receive and register the sale deeds in respect of the flats constructed on the subject property and consequently sought a direction to the respondents No.3 and 4 to receive and register the documents presented by the petitioners.
18. Thereafter, subsequent to the impleadment of the respondents No.5 to 8 as per the orders passed in I.A. No.2 of 2022, petitioners filed amendment of prayer vide I.A. No.4 of 2022 seeking to declare the proceedings dated 26.06.2021 passed in Appeal No.2422 of 2021 by the respondent No.3 and the orders No.3 and 4 of 2021 dated 20.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.4 as illegal and bad in law and consequently sought to set aside the same with a direction to the 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 210 2 (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1 NVSK, J 13 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 respondents No.3 and 4 to receive and register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners in respect of the subject flats.
19. It is further submitted that the petitioners are claiming title based on two sale deeds vide Documents No.867 and 868 of 2017, dated 19.11.2014, which trace their origin to two fraudulent documents, namely Sale Deed No.3867 of 1971 and Mortgage Deed No.1525 of 1978. These documents were fraudulently inserted into the records of R.O. Hyderabad in place of genuine documents. The genuine documents pertain to Mortgage Deed No.3867 of 1971 and Sale deed No.1525 of 1978 pertains to entirely different properties, unconnected with the petitioners' claim. The enquiry conducted by the Assistant Inspector General of the Registration Department culminated in a detailed report dated 19.11.2019, wherein it was conclusively found that Documents No.3867/1971 and 1525 of 1978 were maliciously inserted into the department's database on 08.09.2011 at 12:42 AM. Consequently, FIR No.265 of 2019 was lodged with P.S. Nampally on 08.11.2019 and an additional complaint was lodged on 23.11.2019 regarding the fraudulent documents. It is further submitted that the respondents No.5 to 8 have filed a comprehensive civil suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 before the I Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking a declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs. In this suit, the petitioners are arrayed as defendants No.11 and 12. Additionally, and FIR No.102 of 2019 was lodged with P.S. CCS., NVSK, J 14 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 Hyderabad on 16.05.2019 against the petitioners and all parties are involved in the sale deeds Documents No.867 of 2017 and 868 of 2017 on the ground of fraud. It is further submitted that the petitioners have statutory remedy available under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 to challenge the refusal orders passed by the respondents No.3 and 4. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable in law as the petitioners have bypassed the available statutory remedy by directly approaching this Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
20. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available on the record.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
21. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 26.06.2021 passed in Appeal No.2422 of 2021 by the District Registrar, Hyderabad under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, the said appeals were filed against the refusal orders dated 20.03.2021 of the Sub Registrar, Secunderabad, in respect of pending documents No.P-60 and P-61 of 2021 of SRO, Secunderabad. The appellants have submitted that there are no orders prohibiting alienation of the subject property as they are not notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and that the reasons recorded by the respondent in the refusal orders are vague and against the Registration Rules, as such requested to set aside the refusal orders passed by the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad, pertaining to the documents in question.
NVSK, J 15 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
22. The subject documents are Sale Agreement-cum-GPA with possession in respect of the property of undivided share in house property bearing No.6-1-286, consisting of Flat No.402, in II Floor to the extent of undivided share of land 87 square yards out of 2200 square yards equivalent to 1839.42 square meters with built up area 1885 square feet along with two car parking spaces situated at Padmaraonagar Walker Town, Secunderabad, within the limits of GHMC and the said documents were presented for registration on 20.03.2021 at Sub_Registrar Office, Secunderabad, who refused to register the same for the reason that as per Book 2 extract and also oral depositions made by the Sub-Registrar that the instant pending document got their links in documents No.867/2017 and 868/2017 of Book 1 of SRO, Secunderabad and these two documents got the origin in Documents No.3867/1971 and 1525 of 1978 of Book 1 of RO Hyderabad. The Department found that a fraud occurred by way of inserting forged pages against the document No.3867/1971 and 1525 of 1978 of Book 1 of R.O. Hyderabad. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged with P.S. Nampally in Joint SR1, Hyderabad letter dated 20.11.2019 regarding the tampering of both electronic and manual records of the RO Hyderabad and requested the Police to investigate. As there was a similar case of tampering of records and the complaint made by the Joint SR 1, Hyderabad was registered as FIR bearing 265/2019, the Police have informed the office that the present case be clubbed to the FIR 265/2019 of P.S., Nampally. The Sub Registrar, Secunderabad found that the link documents were NVSK, J 16 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 found to be forged prima facie, and a police enquiry is going on, therefore, registration of any further document on the basis of such forged links will perpetuate the fraud and that the credibility of registration system would be in serious risk. As such the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad vehemently presented the case substantiating the refusal order in the interest of justice and to avert further fraud in the issue which is under investigation by Police on the complaint made by the department with regard to forgery in their official record.
23. There was a specific observation by the District Registrar that on perusal of the available records, it is found that forged copies are inserted by removing original papers of copies of document Nos.3867/1971 and document No.1525/1978 fraudulently on the midnight of 8th September, 2011. These copies are in the Book 1 file volume bearing No.343 and 623 of RO Hyderabad. The records of RO Hyderabad were scanned. As per the record, the original (untampered) records were scanned on 13th November, 2007 and 7th January, 2010 respectively, whereas, the inserted fraudulent record was scanned on 8th September, 2011 at midnight 12:42:14. Based on the criminal complaint filed before the SHO Nampally by the Joint Sub-Registrar-1, through his letter dated 20.11.2019, the P.S. Nampally has clubbed this complaint with a similar case registered as FIR No.265/2019 thereafter, PS, Nampally has transferred these case to CCS, Hyderabad and renumbered as 168/2020 and the CCS, NVSK, J 17 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 Hyderabad is inquiring into the alleged crime. In view of the above, FIR was registered and investigation is going on and the District Registrar did not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad in refusing to register the Sale Agreement-cum-GPA with possession as the orders were passed to stop further frauds on the basis of a fraudulently inserted forged documents in the official records of RO Hyderabad, which is a serious crime. In view of the above, the appeals were rejected.
24. Further, it is seen that the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime PS CCS, DD, Hyderabad, has filed a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.168 of 2020 on 21.05.2022 before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein it is stated that during the course of investigation, a notice was sent under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant i.e. Joint Sub-Registrar, Red Hills, Hyderabad, with a request to produce the electronic devices, relevant documents and any other evidences in support to the investigation. After several requests, documents were provided but neither the complainant nor the NIC team have provided the IP logs of the said entries made in the servers. They have stated that the said entry was made on 28.02.2019 and 01.03.2019 from R.O. Hyderabad but did not provide any IP logs and without IP logs, they cannot trace the person who has made the entries and there is no hope to detect this case in near future and case is pending more than two years without any clues. Further it is stated that after giving complaint, NVSK, J 18 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 they have deleted the dubious fraudulent entry from the data base. It is further stated that all possible efforts were made to trace out the accused but could not yield any result and the final report was filed stating that treating the case as UN-DETECTED for time being and whenever any clues come-forth the case will be re-opened and investigated accordingly.
25. It is pertinent to note here that the date of appeal order is 26.06.2021 thereafter, a final report has been filed on 21.05.2022 and on 28.07.2023 the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, passed the following docket order:
"Date: 28-07-2023 De facto complainant is present and reported no protest. Hence, the final report filed by the police is hereby accepted and office is directed to issue proceedings vide RC.No.02 of 2023."
26. It is pertinent to note that the subsequent events after passing of the impugned order dated 26.06.2021 needs to be considered. Further, it is also to be noted that the suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 that was filed by the respondents No.5 to 8 is pending in which the petitioners herein were arrayed as the defendants as 11 and 12. Additionally, an FIR No.102/2019 was lodged with P.S. CCS, Hyderabad on 16.05.2019 on the ground of fraud against the petitioners and all parties involved in the sale deeds i.e. Documents No.867/2017 and 868/2017.
NVSK, J 19 W.P. No.8489 of 2022
27. In the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for recalling the registration document after registration/cancellation, the competent authority is Civil Court alone and none of the authorities/officers under 1908 Act have power in this regard. Any irregularity, which was done deceitfully to cause loss and harm to other party to the deed is a question of fact which must be pleaded and proved by the party making such allegation and such fact cannot be presumed and aggrieved party by such registration of document is free to challenge its validity before the civil Court. Further, the Registering Officer cannot inquire into title as his power is not quasi-judicial, but administrative in nature. The scope of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for adjudication of disputed question of fact, declaration of private rights of the parties or enforcement of their contractual rights and obligation do not fall within its scope.
28. In the case on hand, there are several disputed facts in question such as allegations of fraud, impersonation, identity and title disputes surrounding the registration of the documents, which necessitates recording of evidence which fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and not writ jurisdiction, which may be adjudicated by the competent civil Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanala Malleshwari 3 (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 767 NVSK, J 20 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 Vs. Ananthula Sayamma (AIR 2007 AP 57). The relevant para No.40 in the case of Satya Pal Anand (Supra) is extracted hereunder:
40. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Yanala Malleshwari [Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma, AIR 2007 AP 57 : 2006 SCC OnLine AP 909] was called upon to consider whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed and whether the Registering Officer like District Registrar and/or Sub-Registrar appointed by the State Government is bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed is presented. The fact remains that if the stipulation contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the 1908 Act are fulfilled, the Registering Officer is bound to register the document. The Registering Officer can refuse to register a document only in situations mentioned in sections such as Sections 19 to 22, 32 and 35. At the same time, once the document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document. The aggrieved party can challenge the registration and validity of the document before the civil court. The majority view of the Full Bench was that if a person is aggrieved by the extinguishment deed or its registration, his remedy is to seek appropriate relief in the civil court and a writ petition is not the proper remedy.
From the above, it is clear that it is a well settled law that the High Court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 NVSK, J 21 W.P. No.8489 of 2022 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate the hotly disputed questions of facts.
29. Having regard to the facts that disputed question of facts are involved in the present case and since the civil suit in O.S. No.203 of 2019 before the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and CMA Nos.129, 133 and 140 of 2022 before this Court are pending and the rights of the parties are not decided till date as such, the order dated 20.03.2021 warrants no interference and at this juncture, no Mandamus can be issued directing the Registering authority to register the subject documents and the writ petition is devoid of merits and fails. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rights of the parties. However, the parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies as available under law.
30. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 11.07.2025 Note: L.R. copy be marked.
B/o.
LSK