APHC010213922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION N BETWEEN: 1. BATTA SHYAM PRASAD, S/o ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/ VILLAGE, DORAVARI SATRAM MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 2. BATTA SIVARAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC GOLLAPALEM VILLAGE, DORAVARI SATRAM MANDAL, TIRUPATHY DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND IG OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TIRUPATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. JOINT SUBREGISTRARII, REGISTRAR OFFICE, TIRUPATHI,ANDHRA PRADESH 4. PRENATI SATHYANARAYANA S/O ANANDAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS OCC BUSINESS, R/O MANNARUPOLURU VILLAGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10818/2025 BATTA SHYAM PRASAD, S/o. B.SIVARAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/o. GOLLAPALEM VILLAGE, DORAVARI SATRAM MANDAL, TIRUPATHI BATTA SIVARAM PRASAD, S/o. B.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYE, R/ GOLLAPALEM VILLAGE, DORAVARI SATRAM MANDAL, TIRUPATHY DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND IG OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TIRUPATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. JOINT SUBREGISTRARII, REGISTRAR OFFICE, TIRUPATHI,ANDHRA PRADESH PRENATI SATHYANARAYANA S/O ANANDAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS OCC BUSINESS, R/O MANNARUPOLURU VILLAGE [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO B.SIVARAM PRASAD, AGED GOLLAPALEM VILLAGE, DORAVARI SATRAM MANDAL, TIRUPATHI B.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, EMPLOYE, R/o. GOLLAPALEM VILLAGE, DORAVARI SATRAM MANDAL, ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND IG OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TIRUPATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. JOINT SUBREGISTRARII, REGISTRAR OFFICE, PRENATI SATHYANARAYANA S/O ANANDAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS OCC BUSINESS, R/O MANNARUPOLURU VILLAGE 2 AND POST, SULLURUPET MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 5. PATRAM CHENGAIAH S/O MUNEYYA, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O MANNARUPOLURU VILLAGE AND POST, SULLURUPET MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. KASIMALA NARASAIAH S/O KASIMALA VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE, CHURCH COMPOUND, RAPUR, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 524408. 7. POONAMALLI ABRAHAM PRADEEP S/O THIMOTY RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O 10, NEW MUNICIPAL CORPORATION QUARTERS, AC NAGAR, NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT. 8. KARLAPUDI SRIHARI S/O KARLAPUDU JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, 9-8-11, PARK STREET, SULLURPETA, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 524121. 9. KARLAPUDU VENKATARATHNAM C/O K JAYA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, 8-2-220, GANDIA STREET, NEAR STATE BANK, SULLURPETA, NELLORE, ANDHRAPRADESH 524121 RR 4 TO 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURTS ORDER DT.11.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.S 2,3,4,5 RESPECTIVELY ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, A. Declaring the Refusal Orders bearing No.11/2023 and No.12/2023 dated 01-07-2023 of the 3RD Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void, contrary to statutory Law, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution and set aside the same Declaring the Orders of the 2ND Respondent dated 24-01-2025 in 3 Appeal No.02/2023 and Appeal No.03/2023 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void, contrary to statutory Law, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution and set aside the same Directing the 3RD Respondent herein to receive, register and release the sale deeds of the Petitioners bearing P.No.403/2023 and P.No.404/2023 dated 01-07-2023 forthwith. And to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent herein to receive and register and the sale deeds of the Petitioners bearing P.No.403/2023 and P.No.404/2023 dated 01-07-2023; pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners/proposed respondents to come on record as respondents to the writ petition and may pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent No. 4 as a party respondent No. 4 in the present Contempt case and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to: a) Implead the Proposed Petitioner as Respondent No.4 in W.P No. 10818 of 2025; b) Consider the objection submitted by the Proposed Petitioner on 08.07.2025 under Rule 58(3) and direct the Respondent authorities to duly adjudicate the objection before any registration is effected; c) Pass 4 IA NO: 5 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondents No. 4 and 5 as Respondents No. 4 and 5 in the present Writ petition and pass IA NO: 6 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the cause title in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 7 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the docket prayer in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PRASAAD LAW OFFICES LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 5 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 Constitution of India for the following reliefs: …..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, A. Declaring the Refusal Orders bearing No 11/2023 and No.12/2023 dated 01.07.2023 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void, contrary to statutory Law, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution and to set aside the same; B. Declaring the Orders of the 2nd respondent dated 24.01.2025 in Appeal No.02/2023 and Appeal No.03/2023 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void, contrary to statutory Law, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution and set aside the same; C. Directing the 3rd respondent herein to receive, register and release the sale deeds of the petitioners bearing P.No.403/2023 and P.No.404/2023 dated 01.07.2023 forthwith. D. And to pass such other order or orders…… 2. The petitioners herein presented documents to respondent No.3 to register the sale deeds executed by their Vendors i.e., South Andhra Lutheran Church (S.A.L.C.) Regd.No.6/1954 dated 6 15.07.1954 represented by Incharge Chairman Sri Nelluru Ramya Suresh S/o Sundara Raja, and another on behalf of board of Trustees (herein after refer as Church) for land admeasuring 256 Sq.Yards, in favour of the 1st Petitioner and land admeasuring 479.06 Sq. yards with built up RCC Structure measuring 4311.61 Square feet in favour of 2nd Petitioner in Sy. No.14/1 situated at Tirupathi District, Sullurpeta Village, Sullurpeta Municipality, the both sale deeds were rejected under Section 71 of the Registration Act 1908 (for brevity hereafter refer as Act) vide order bearing No 11/2023 and No.12/2023 dated 01.07.2023, by the respondent No.3 on the following objections: 1. There is a circular memo number CA4D3/6033/2016 dated 12.08.2016 not to register Survey Numbers having Notional Khata Numbers. 2. The Executant has not submitted any document with regard to himself being authorised by SALC, to alienate the properties of the Church, not submitted a resolution to the effect GB of the said society has authorised him to sell the schedule piece of land. 3. In the 1B of Webland accessed from the Meebhumi Portal, the name of the Pattadar is recorded as OEL, Mission property, whereas the document is presented on behalf of the enjoyer 7 SACL. It is not known whether the SACL is authority to alienate the said property. 4. In the devolution column in Webland, the mode of devolution of the property is recorded as UNKNOWN, which implies that the Pattadar has not produced source document to assign regular Khata number. 3. The said order of the respondent No.3 was confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Section 72 of the Act vide order dated 24.01.2025 in Appeal No. 2/2023 and Appeal No. 3/2023 respectively. 4. The said order of the respondent No.3 in refusing to register the sale deeds which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority is challenged before this Court on the following grounds: 1. The subject property is commercial property and it was assessed for property tax and in the said assessment, property tax was assessed and continuing as agricultural land and assigning of “Notional Khata Number” without any notice to the Vendor is probably a mistake committed by the respondents. 2. The Vendor of the petitioners has enclosed the resolution No 47/2022 by the Executive Committee of the Church authorising 8 in favour of N. Ramya Suresh and MR. O.D.J. Prasanth Kumar who are incharge Chairman Board of Trustees and incharge Treasurer, SALC respectively. 3. The vendor has shown that the Government has acknowledged the Vendor to be the owner of the Subject property and part of the subject property was first leased to Civil Court, latter to the Electricity Office of the A.P. Government. 4. Revenue records are not proof of title and categorising the land as agricultural land and requirement of Khata Number for registration is patently illegal. 5. And placed reliance on the following Judgments: In the case of K.Gopi Vs. the Sub-Registrar and Ord.1, the Apex Court held in the following: “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 1 2025 SCC Online SC 740 9 Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property 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 executants possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer." 6. And in the order in W.P. No. 28634 of 2012 and W.P. No. 28006 of 2012, dated 17.10.2012, the common High Court has directed to register the documents without insisting the ‘No objection Certificate’ executed by the Church. 7. And also relied on the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. 11609 of 2025 dated 01.05.2025, where in this Court relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in K. Gopi’s case (referred supra 1) has directed to register the document purchased by the Karlapudi Srihari (respondent No-8) 8. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned rejection order consequently to direct the registering authority to register the sale deeds presented by the writ petitioners. 10 9. The official respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their counters, but they have not provided any additional information beyond reiterating the findings of the impugned orders. 10. While the Writ Petition is pending for consideration, the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 filed implead petition to implead them as respondents to the Writ Petition. 11. The learned Designate Senior Counsel Sri O. Manohar Reddy appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that, to take decision of the property of the Church the resolution of the Church is essential. The SALC did not recorded minutes of meeting to pass resolution from the year 2015, there is no occasion to pass resolution and the 4th respondent has entered into an Agreement of sale for an extent of 480 Sq. yards on 27.04.2013 in the same Sy.No.14/1 out of total extent of Ac. 3.83 cents and having received substantial consideration, the Church did not turn up to come and register the document, hence constrained to file a suit O.S. No.258 of 2014 for Specific Performance, on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur and the same is pending. 12. The learned Designate Senior Counsel Sri Ganta Rama Rao would submit that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have entered into an agreement with the Church to purchase an extent of 215 ankanalu 11 and 58 anakanalu, when the documents were presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar Sullurpeta, refused to register the document then by virtue of order in W.P. No 28006 of 2012 of the common High Court, the Sub-Registrar has registered the document on 03.09.2012, later the respondent No.5 has sold the property to respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 except the said property no other property is left with the Church, the vendor of the writ petitioners cannot sell the property belong to respondent Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9. (respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are purchasers from the respondent No.5) and the writ petitioners are relying on the fabricated resolution No. 47/2022, dated 30.06.2023, allegedly passed by S.A.L.C. (Church). And placed reliance of the order in W.A. No. 735 of 2022, dated 05.12.2022 and Section 22B of the Registration Act reads thus: “22B: Non-acceptance of Registration of document regarding the property already conveyed by a registered document by the same person: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in-force, no Registering Officer shall accept for Registration any document relating to the sale of any immovable property, if the property comprised therein has already been conveyed or permanently alienated by the same person or his representative, assignee or agent in favour of any other 12 person by a registered documents unless the previous registered document is cancelled by order of a court. 13. 13. Sri Akula Sai Krishna Bhargav, learned counsel for respondent No.7 states that law is very well settled under the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 that the registration authority is not obligated to register the document where legal objections have been raised and are pending under Rule 58(3), particularly when the ownership and title is in dispute that, Mr.Ramya Suresh and O.D.J. Prasanth Kumar are in no capacity to appear as a representative to sell the subject property to the petitioners and the consideration of respondent no.7’s objections is mandatory as per the subject rules and relied on order in W.P. No. 19512 of 2019 for the proposition that “when there are complicated question of fact to be looked into deciding the same is not permissible under Article 226 Constitution of India” and also relied the Judgment in Yanala Malleshwari Vs. Anantula Sayamma2 counsel relied on the following para of the common high court which is here extracted: Though Rule 58 prohibits the registering officers from enquiring into validity of the document, Rule 26 read with Rule 58 reveals that it is always permissible for the registering officer to examine the document presented for registration as to whether the person who presented the document is entitled to present, 2 AIR 2007 AP 57 = (2006) SCC Online AP 909, (F.B.) 13 whether such person is known to the officer or has been properly identified by the identifying witnesses, and also examine the document with reference to the various provisions referred to hereinabove. If any objection is raised, the registering officer has to consider whether the parties appearing before him are not the parties they profess to be, whether the document is forged and whether the document is presented without proper authority by representative, and whether the executing party is dead or not. In case, the registering officer is not satisfied, he can refuse registration. 14. The learned Designate Senior Counsel Sri Venkateswarlu Posani for respondent Nos.8 and 9 would submit that they have purchased the property from respondent No.5, and reiterated the argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel Sri Ganta Rama Rao. 15. Heard leaned designate Senior Counsel Sri M.S. Prasad for the writ petitioners, respective Learned Counsels for the respondents and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 16. An elaborate synopsis is filed in the form of written arguments by the counsel for the writ petitioners fulminating the contentions of the respondents: The learned Senior counsel Sri M.S. Prasad in his reply argument to the contentions raised by the respondent No.4 submitted that the 4th respondent have an unregistered Agreement of Sale 14 dated 27.04.2013, in respect of certain property admeasuring 489 Sq. yards in Sy.No.14-1 total extent A.3.83 Cents; and the suit filed by the 4th respondent pending adjudication before the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, vide O.S. No. 258 / 2018, admittedly there is no injunction against the vendors of the writ petitioners i.e., either the SALC or the Authorised Officers of the SALC. 17. The learned Senior Counsel in his reply argument, to the contentions raised by the respondent No.7, submitted that there are internal disputes among the members of SALC regarding the management of the Society and inspite communication of directing all the claimants to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, till date, no such application is filed and lawful management of SALC remains in abeyance. 18. The learned Senior Counsel further argues that the issue in the present Writ Petition is directly covered by the orders of this Court in W.P. No.28006/2012 and W.P. No.28634/2012, dated 17.10.2012. In those matters, this Court permitted the registration of documents executed by rival groups of SALC and directed the implead respondents therein, who were objecting to the authority of the vendors in the documents, to work out their remedies regarding the said issue before the appropriate forum. 15 19. And the present respondent No.7 has not objected to the said transaction until now and the Rt. Rev. K.S. Chandrasekhar, who belongs to the rival group claimed management and executed the sale deed in 2012 in favour of P. Kishore Kumar and Kasimalla Narsaiah and it appears that the present petition filed by respondent No.7 at the behest of, and for the benefit of Sri Karlapudi Srihari, also filed W.P. No.11609/2025 who is respondent No.8 in the present Writ Petition and that indicates there is nexus between the respondent No.7 and respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition. 20. In reply to the contention raised by the 5th respondent, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Schedule Property in the present Sale Deed is not forming part of land purchased along with P. Kishore Kumar vide Document No.2972/2012 dated 03.09.2012 and the same property is being sold again by SALC, therefore, it is hit by Section 22B of the Registration Act is without any factual base, untenable and fallacious and the Schedule Property of this Sale Deed is not part of the land sold by SALC in favour of P.Kishore Kumar and Kasimalla Narasaiah vide Document No.2972/2012 dated 03.09.2012; and admittedly Kasimalla Narasaiah having executed relinquishment Deed bearing Document No.4117/2021 dated 03.07.2021, along with Kishore Kumar and his 16 Vendee Amos Babu, in favour of 3rd parties to an extent of 1702.5 Sq. yards i.e., 212 ankanams out of 215 ankanams already, and the 5th respondent has no locus standi, or right, to challenge the present sale deed, executed by SALC in favour of the Writ Petitioners herein. Admittedly, the extents in the Sale Deeds dated 01.07.2023 are 479.06 Sq. yards, and 256 Sq. yards, is about 158 square yards. Therefore, the lands are different and Section 22B of the Registration Act has no application to the facts of this case. 21. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the rejection of the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration by the official respondents is contrary to law and the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Gopi’s case (referred supra 1). 22. It is the contention of the unofficial respondents that the petitioners are attempting to purchase land belonging to respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, and that the vendor of the Writ Petitioners does not have the authority to execute the sale deed of the property relating to the Unofficial respondent Nos. 4,5,6,8 and 9. 23. The law is well settled that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts a claim. Since the unofficial respondents claim that the land belongs to them and that the vendor in question had no authority 17 to execute the sale deed, the burden lies upon them to prove the same. They have relied on the order passed in the Writ Appeal, as well as Rules 22-B and 58 of the Registration Act. 24. It is the specific pleading of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that the property in question is different from the property allegedly purchased by the unofficial respondents. Hence, the burden is upon the unofficial respondents to prove that the land covered by their sale deed is the same as that sought to be purchased by the petitioners, irrespective of the legal contentions raised. 25. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Subhaga and others v. Shobha and others3 clearly says that once the property can been identify by boundaries, even if there is any discrepancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail and also go to show that the boundary description will prevail over other misdescription of Survey Number or extent. 26. The principle has been enunciated in The Church of South India Trust Association through its power of Attorney Agents Rev. C.E. Soundiraraj V. Raja Ambrose4, in the second the decisions it is stated that the subject-matter of the grant would depend on the intention of the parties as expressed in the relevant 3 2006 (5) SCC 466 4 (1978)2 MLJ 620 18 conveyance deed. Where the deed sets out the extent and measurements correctly, there can be no difficulty in determining the subject-matter of the grant. But where no measurements are given or the extent mentioned in the deed is either vague or is only a rough and ready approximation, one has to look to other indications in the deed in order to fix the identity of the property which is the subject of the grant. If the deed in question sets out the boundaries will have to be accepted as a clear reflection of the intention of the grantor and they will conclude not only the exact positioning of the property conveyed, but also its true extent. 27. One Ankanam is approximately equal to 0.165 cents. Extent of item no.1 is 228 ankanams item no.2 is 45 ankanams total 273 ankanams is equal to approximately total extent is 45.13 cents. respondent No.4 has purchased 480 Sq. yards. If the land sold to the unofficial respondents is exempted from the total Ac.3.83 cents, then an extent of Ac. 3.33 cents still remains. 28. That the unofficial respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 can indeed invoke Section 22B of the Act and rely on the corresponding Writ Appeal order if they can establish their property as the subject property of the Writ Petition is same and the writ petitioners are trying to register is within the limits of their own property. The unofficial 19 respondents do not assert that the vendor of the writ petitioners is selling the property within the boundaries defined by the respondents' sale deeds and their identities are in question. As they are not able to establish the same the Section 22B and the Writ Appeal order are not helpful to them. 29. In this case, the identity of the land is in dispute and unofficial respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 8, and 9 are not able to prove the same with cogent evidence, it can be identified by its boundaries. 30. The unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 9 can contest the Writ Petition by arguing that the vendors of the Petitioners lacked the legal right to sell the property rather than directly disputing the vendor’s authority. 31. Admittedly the extent of land in Survey No.14/1 is Ac.3.83 cents. The respondents are not able to establish that the property description in the sale deeds of the petitioners and respondents is one and the same. The unofficial respondents do not assert that the vendor of the writ petitioners is selling the property within the boundaries defined by the respondents' sale deeds. The unofficial respondents must establish that the land in the sale deed submitted for registration by the writ petitioners is the same as the land purchased by respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. And it is not 20 demonstrated, the Registration Authority is obliged to register the sale deed. 32. The Judgment in K. Gopi’s case (referred supra1) addresses the contention raised by the respondent No.7 regarding Rule 58 of the Registration Rules. 33. It is needless to state that buyer would get title subject to the rights and liabilities of its vendor. The Apex Court in K. Gopi’s case (referred supra1) held that The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. Registering authority has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. And it is not the government land. 34. After careful consideration of the above exposition and the proposition established by the Apex Court, it is clear that the registering authority is not concerned with the title held by the executant. Registering authority has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Hence, the Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioners is to be granted and as a result, the orders of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are set aside, and the respondent No.3 is hereby directed to register the document presented by the writ petitioners, previously rejected by an order dated 01.07.2023. 21 35. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 19.09.2025 Harin 22 591 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 10818 OF 2025 Date: 19.09.2025 Harin