IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 368 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Writ Appeal aggrieved by the Order, dt.16.03.2023 in W.P.No.13658/2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court. Between: 1. V M Narotthama Reddy, S/o. V.M. Subba Reddy, Aged 61 years, R/o. D.No. 17-123-2, Subbireddygari Street, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District 2. V.M. Rajamma, W/o. Late V.M. Narayana Reddy, Aged 85 years, R/o. D.No.14-56, Srinivasapuram, YMR Colony, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District 3. M. Shobha, W/o. Late V.M. Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged 65 years, R/o. Flat NO.404B, Rolin Arcade, Street No.1, Czech Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 4. V.M. Ravi Kumar Reddy, S/o. Late V.M. Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged 38 years, R/o. Flat No.404B, Rolin Arcade, Street No.1, Czech Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 5. V.M. Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o. Late V.M. Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged 34 years, R/o. Flat No.404B, Rolin Arcade, Street No.1, Czech Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 6. V.M. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Late V.M. Narayana Reddy, Aged 61 years, R/o. D.No.14-56, Srinivasapuram, YMR Colony, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District 7. V.M. Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Late V.M. Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged 80 years, R/o. D.No.17-117, Subbireddygari Street, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 & 12 AND 1. Kamatham Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. K. Subba Reddy, Aged • D.No.3/1299 up, Maadi House, T.B, Road, Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District. ...1®^ respondent/writ petitioner 2 The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretaiy , Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagap , Amaravathi, Guntur District and Registration Department 3 The Inspector General, Stamps nr- + ■ + Edupugallu, Kankipadu Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District District Registrar, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District Joint Sub-Registrar-1, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District 4. The 5. The 6. V.M. Rama Subba Reddy @ Annaiah, (Died) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 11 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 that in the circumstances support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the Documents 1 to 6 as Annexures in support of the Writ Appeal filed by the Appellants. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying stated in the affidavit filed in lA NO: 2 OF 2023 that in the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bb dt.16.03.2023 in suspend the operation of Order pleased to W.P.No.13658/2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Between: Kamatham Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. K. Subba Reddy 39 years^ Rto D.No.3/1299 UP, Maadi House, T.B. Road, Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District. ST RESPONDENTA/VRIT PETITIONER/PETITIONER ...1 AND 1 V M Narotthama Reddy, S/o. V.M. Subba Reddy, Aged 61 Subbireddygari Street, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District 2. V.M. Rajamma, W/o. Late V.M. Narayana Reddy^Aged y®ars^ R/o^ YMR Colony, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa D.No.17-123-2 D.No. 14-56, Srinivasapuram District 3 M Shobha. W/o. Late V.M. Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged 65 years, R/o. Flat NO.404B, Rolin Arcade Street No.1, Czech Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 4 V.M. Ravi Kumar Reddy, S/o. Late V.M. Venkata Subba Reddy Aged 38 years, R/o. Flat No.404B Rolin Arcade, Street No.1, Czech Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 5 V.M. Rajasekhar Reddy, S/o. Late V.M. Venkata Subba Reddy^ Aged 34 years, R/o. Flat No.404B Rolin Arcade, Street No.1, Czech Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad Sudhakar Reddy. S/o. Late V.M. Narayana Reddy, Aged 61 year^ YMR Colony, Proddatur, YSR j 6. V.M. R/o. D.No. 14-56, Srinivasapuram Kadapa District 7 V M. Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Late V.M. Ramakrishna Reddy, A>geq Subbireddygari Street, Proddatur, YSK 80 years, R/o. D.No.17-117 Kadapa District ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 & 12 Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, 8. The State of Andhra (Stamps and Registration) Department. Amaravathi, Guntur District and Registration Department, 9. The Inspector General, Stamps Edupugallu, Kankipadu Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District 10. The District Registrar, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District 11. The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District 12. V.M. Rama Subba Reddy @ Annaiah, (Died) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 11 Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to vacate the interim orders dated 14.08.2023 made in iA No.2 of 2023 in WA No. 368 of 2023. Petition under Counsel for the Appellants: SMT. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI V R REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: GP FOR REGISTRATION & STAMPS Counsel for the Respondent No.6: The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 1 APHC010158282023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 368/2023 [3508] S-.iiS THE THE Between; V M Narotthama Reddy and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Kamatham Vijaya Lakshmi and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 2.VR REDDY KOVVURl made the following Judgment: (perHon’ble Sh Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The Court One Vempalli Mopuru Subbi Reddy was initially married to iate V.Subba Reddy. The said V.Subba Smt Narayanamma and they had a Reddy passed away child less. Sri V.M.Subbi Reddy had married a second time and four sons were son born to him through his second wife. 2. It appears that there was a dispute between the step brothers, on filed against Sri V.Subba Reddy and other account of which a suit was members of the famiiy wherein Sri V.Subba Reddy was arrayed as defendant no.1 in the said suit, bearing O.S.No.3/1978, on the file of the Sub Judge m Proddatur. The suit was partly allowed granting various shares in the estate of late Sri V.M.Subbi Reddy. Sri V.Subba Reddy being aggrieved by this judgment, had filed A.S.No.176/1980 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which came to be disposed of on 20.11.1989. Sri V.Subba Reddy passed away on 10.01.1990, after the disposal of the appeal. 3. The writ petitioner herein claiming to be the daughter of the foster of Sri V.Subba Reddy executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter Smt. K.Prema, for an extent of Ac.0.06 cents out of 1/3'"' share, that is said to have devolved on her, in relation to Ac.0.91 cents of land bearing D.No.3/1330 in ward no.3 in Sy.No.357 on T.B.Road, Proddatur Town. This deed of gift presented, for registration, before the Joint Sub Registrar-1, Proddatur. By proceedings, dated 02.7.2021, the Joint Sub Registrar-1, Proddatur refused to register the said document on the ground that the writ petitioner did not have title over the schedule property. Aggrieved by this order of refusal, the writ petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No. 13658 of 2021, which to be allowed, by a learned single Judge of this Court, by a judgment, dated 16.3.2023. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants, who have been arrayed as respondent nos.5 to 10 and 12 in the writ petition, have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal. 4. The writ appellants are the children and descendants of Sri V.M.Subbi Reddy and his second wife Smt. V.M.Chinna Lingamma. The case of the appellants is that, a cinema theater named Vijaya Kumar Picture Palace had been constructed on Ac.0.91 cents of land which had originally belonged to Sri V.Subba Reddy. However, the trial Court had negatived the claim and right of Sri V.Subba Reddy over the said property and the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in its judgment dated 20.11.1989 had held that Sri V.Subba reddy was not entitled to any share in the said land but only to an amount of Rs.20,500/- which would be payable by the plaintiffs in the suit to Sri V.Subba Reddy. The appellants also claimed that the said amount was paid in cash to Sri V.Subba Reddy during his life time. son was came 3 this basis, that the writ petitioner, who The appellants contend, on Sri V.Subba Reddy does not have any title to the property. 5. claims title through In any event, title is said to have devolved on the father of the writ petitioner reading of the will make it amply clear, that no through a will. However, a such devolution has taken place under the said will. account of these facts, the Joint The appellants contend that on Sub Registrar-1 had rightly refused to register the gift deed in as much as the 6. writ petitioner does not have title over the property. Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the of Section 34, 35, 76 and 77 of 7. appellants, has also taken us to the provisions the Registration Act 1908 to l Sub Registrar-I) has the authority, under these provisions of law, to consider the document and to refuse registration, if contend that the Registrar (in this case the Joint the title of the person presenting title is not made out to the satisfaction of the Registrar. O.Manohar Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on 8. Sri behalf of the writ petitioner, who is arrayed as respondent no.1 in the present Writ Appeal would contend that no such power exists, with the Registrar, to go is the subject matter of a into the question of title to the property which and that the said provisions of law would document presented for registration only apply to the extent of the persons presenting formalities required for registration of documents are complied with, counsel also relies upon the Judgment of the of the Registrar having authority to verify the identity documents for registration and to ensure that the The learned senior 9. between Asset Reconstruction Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Company (India Ltd.) vs. S.P.Velayutham and others' to contend that such refusal of registration can be challenged before this Court by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whether the writ petitioner has title over the land or this Writ Appeal. The only The question not, is outside the scope of the Writ Petition or that would arise before this Court, is whether the order, of refusal, by 10. issue. ^ (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 210 4 the Joint Sub Registrar-1 is in accordance with the provisions of the law and whether the Joint Sub Registrar-1, has the authority or jurisdiction to undertake a detailed enquiry into the title of the person presenting the document for registration. 11. Section 34 of the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’) permits the registration officer to conduct an enquiry, to the extent permitted under Section 34. The scope of Section 34 of the Act is to allow the registering officer to ensure that a document would be registered only upon the person executing such document or their authorized personnel appearing before the registering officer, within the time allowed for such presentation, and to verify whether the document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed; satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him who state that they have executed the document and in the case of any person appearing as a representative or authorized person to satisfy himself of the right of such persons to so appear. This provision does not empower the registering officer to go into the question of title or otherwise of the person presenting the document. Similarly Section 35 of the Act requires the registering officer to ensure that the persons executing the documents admit execution of such document before the registering officer and what steps are to be taken if the person who is purported to have executed such a document denies its execution. This provision also does not empower the registering authority to verify title. Section 71 of the Act requires the Sub-Registrar, refusing to register a document, to record his reasons for refusal and place them in Book No. 2. This provision, at best, requires the registering authority to record reasons. However, this would not mean that the registering authority can refuse registration for reasons which are not available under the provisions of the Registration Act 1908. Section 76 of the Registration Act requires the Registrar to record reasons for refusal. In the event of such refusal. Section 77 of the Registration Act permits the affected person to file a suit against such order of refusal. 5 12. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any provision in the Registration Act or the Rules which empower or give jurisdiction to a registering authority to go into title of the person presenting the document and to refuse registration on such grounds. However, it would always be open to the Sub-Registrar, in extreme cases (Rule 58 of the Registration Rules), where it is apparent on the face of the record that the person presenting the document does not have title, to refuse registration. 13. It may also be observed that, mere registration of a document does not confer title on the person in whose favour such a document is executed and registered. It is settled law that such registration does not, in any manner, confer right on the beneficiary of such a document, in as much as the executant of a document can only pass on such title as is available to the executants and mere execution and registration of a document does not create a title where none exists. 14. In the present case, the question of whether the writ petitioner has title to the property or not is a matter which requires to be gone into by an appropriate civil Court. It appears that O.S.No.36/2023 has been before the II Additional District Judge, Proddatur for cancellation of the deed of gift that is sought to be registered and is pending before the trial Court. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate that the appellants are relegated to the said suit for a determination as to the right and title of writ petitioner over the subject property. It is also submitted that O.S.No.37/2023 before the same Court, has been filed by another set of claimants for the same relief apart from declaration of their right and title over the entire extent of Ac.0.91 cents. 15. Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned senior counsel, has also raised another issue which requires consideration by this Court. He would contend that the learned single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition, has also made observations on the right and title of the writ petitioner over the property and such observations would affect the right of the appellants and the other plaintiffs in the aforesaid suits in as much as the trial Court would be bound by the observations made in the order of the learned single Judge. These 6 m However, this observations are also challenged on the merits of the case, into those merits and it would suffice to hold that Court does not propose to go the said observations made by the learned single Judge shall not be taken both the aforesaid suits or in any other into account by the trial Court in the aforesaid Ac.0.91 cents of land. The trial Court shall litigation in relation to consider and pass orders in these suits in accordance with the pieadings evidence and submissions placed before the trial Court. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no 16. order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO I DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Inspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, Edupugallu, Kankipadu Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District 3. The District Registrar, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District 4. The Joint Sub-Registrar-l, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District 5. One CC to Smt. Sodum Anvesha Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri V R Reddy Kovvuri Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Registration & Stamps, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED: 18/02/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.368 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS