HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1269 OF 2009 Dated: 12-11-2009 Between: Sri Anantha Padmanabha Swamy Temple, rep., by its Executive Officer, Padmanabham Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District ... APPELLANT AND Telu Varalakshmi and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1269 OF 2009 JUDGEMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 17-09-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 17336 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by original respondent No.2. 2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under: For the sake of convenience, the parties to the litigation have been described hereinbelow as arrayed before the learned single Judge in the writ petition. The petitioner wanted a sale deed registered in her favour in respect of the land in question and, therefore, she had approached respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 did not even accept the same and, therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court with a prayer that respondent No.1 should be directed to accept the document for its registration and register the same, in accordance with law or respondent No.1 should pass an appropriate order. After hearing the learned advocates, the learned single Judge directed respondent No.1 to register the document as per law, within four weeks from the date of its presentation. The learned single Judge gave a direction for registration for the reason that respondent No.1 could not establish that the property in question, which was being sold, belonged to respondent No.2 – temple trust. It was the case of respondent No.2 before the learned single Judge that the land in question belonged to it. However, no evidence could be adduced by respondent No.2 to show that the land in question belonged to it. In the aforestated circumstances, the learned single Judge was pleased to allow the petition by giving the aforestated direction. 3. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has submitted that the land in question belonged to respondent No.2 – temple. So as to substantiate his case, he has relied upon a letter dated 23-08-2007 addressed by the Executive Officer of respondent No.2 – temple to the Sub-Registrar i.e., respondent No.1 and some record showing that the land in question belonged to the temple. The said letter which was also supported by an annexure, which is at page 32 of the material papers, was not duly considered by the learned single Judge and, therefore, a direction was given to register the document within four weeks from the date of its presentation. 4. In our opinion, especially, when a case was made out before the learned single Judge that the land in question belonged to respondent No.2, the learned single Judge could not have given a direction to respondent No.1 to register the document which was to be presented before him. At the most, respondent No.1 could have been given a direction to consider the said document and if it was not open to him to register the same, he ought to have been given a direction to reject the registration by assigning reasons under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act’). 5. In view of the aforestated position, it is clear that the Sub- Registrar was not totally unjustified in not registering the document. However, he should not have refused to accept the document for registration. 6. For the aforestated reasons, we quash and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and give a direction to respondent No.1 – Sub-Registrar to accept the document and if he is of the view that for whatever reason the document cannot be registered, he may refuse to register the same by assigning reasons for refusal under Section 71 of the Act and communicate the same to the petitioner. He shall pass appropriate order, if he refuses to register the document, within one month of its presentation before him. 7. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel to the disposal of the appeal as allowed, WAMP No. 2653 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12-11-2009 ks