THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 2682 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioners claim to be the owners of plot bearing No. 348 and 387, each admeasuring 666.66 Sq.yds., situated in Sy. Nos. 174, 175, 177, 180, 181, 187, 188, 189 and 190 of Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District, having purchased the same vide registered sale deeds (Document Nos. 3067/1984, dated 13.06.1984 and 2328/1984, dated 16.05.1984 respectively, from their vendors Mr. Agani Mallaiah and others represented by their GPA holder, and in possession thereof since then. The petitioners state that their vendors having sold the said plots to them under registered sale deeds, resorted to sale of the same once again to third parties, even though they had no title to the same. The said third parties, the petitioners state, entered into collusive transaction and took up some legal proceedings against some of the vendors of the petitioners. The petitioners state that due to ﬁnancial diﬃculties, they intended to dispose of the plots owned by them and accordingly executed sale deeds dated 04.01.2008 in favour of Smt. Yenugu Sumalatha and Sri Gourineni Narayana Rao, and when they presented them for registration, the respondent, namely the Sub Registrar, Sangareddy, who the registering authority, refused to entertain the said sale deeds for registration on the ground that civil suits in relation to the land in Sy. Nos. 175 and 180 are pending before the competent civil Court. Hence, assailing the said action of the respondent, as being illegal and arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither the petitioners nor the respondent are parties to the suit in O.S. No. 209 of 2005 said to have been ﬁled by some third parties on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, seeking injunction in relation to the land in Sy. Nos.175 and 180, and as such, the action of the respondent in refusing to entertain and register the sale deeds presented by the petitioners for registration, is illegal and arbitrary, and more so when there is no direction given by the said civil Court restraining the respondent from entertaining and registering the documents. The respondent ﬁled counter. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, reiterated the averments made by the respondent in the counter. He admitted that the petitioners purchased the plots in question under registered sale deeds from their vendors, but denied that they submitted any documents for registration. He, however, submitted that there is an order of injunction granted in O.S. No. 209 of 2005 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, directing not to alienate the land admeasuring Acs. 16.06 guntas in Sy. No. 181 and Acs. 6.32 guntas in Sy. No. 175 of Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. He submitted that the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 620, Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 28.09.2002, prohibiting the Sub- Registrar from registering the document when there is injunction order from the Court. Unless the said injunction order is vacated, he submitted that the documents presented by the petitioners cannot be admitted for registration, and thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent. The transactions relating to transfer of immovable property is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908, while the title, capacity of the parties to transfer the property etc. are governed by diﬀerent laws such as Law of Succession, Testamentary or otherwise, etc. The normal understanding of the general public is that once a document is registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 they get title to the property. But that is not so. The execution of or registration of a document by itself will not create any new title, and the execution of or registration of such document covering an immovable property is governed by the principle Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet, which means ‘no person can transfer/pass a better title than what he possess in the property so transferred’. Given the fact that transfer of an immovable property is governed by this principles, the registering authority when receives a document and registers it, does not decide title of the persons executing the document. Therefore, mere registration of a document will not confer any new title, and in the case of any title disputes arising out of such registrations, they are subject to and decided under the provisions of various other laws, governing the transfer of immovable property. The Orissa High Court in Jogi Das v. Fakir Panda[1] had occasion to consider the object and purpose of the Registration Act, and having considered the same, it held as follows: The object and purpose of the Registration Act, amongst other things, is to provide a method of public registration of documents so as to give information to people regarding legal rights and obligations arising or aﬀecting a particular property, and to perpetuate documents, which may afterwards be of legal importance, and also prevent fraud. From the above, it is clear that registration of a document, merely records the transaction and gives information to people regarding legal rights and obligations arising or aﬀecting a particular property, which in future would be of legal importance and prevent playing of fraud. The apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata[2], held that the Registration Act only strikes at the documents and not at the transactions, that the whole aim of the Act is to govern documents and not the transactions embodied therein, and thereby only the notice of the public is drawn. A learned Judge of this court in Raghu Praveen & Ors. v. R.D.O., Kakinada[3], held as follows: Except in a case where a property is notiﬁed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the registering authority has no power to refuse to register a document presented to him as regards the property within his jurisdiction, if the document is otherwise in the order, and if there is no dispute as to the identity of the executant. I n Mandadi Nirmala v. District Collector, Hyderabad[4], a Division Bench of this court was dealing with a case where the registering authority refused to register the document on the ground that the proceedings relating to the subject matter of the document were pending in the Land Grabbing Court. Speaking for the Bench, Sri Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi (as he then was), observed as under: “We therefore, direct the Sub-Registrar to consider the question of registration of the documents in the light of the Registration Act after referring to the objection raised by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and to pass appropriate orders according to law. In case it is decided to register and release the documents appropriate endorsements shall be made on the documents referring to the factum of objection by the revenue department and the over-ruling of objection. It is made clear that the alienations in question will be subject to the result of the land grabbing case said to be pending in the Special Court”. Therefore, the dispute as to title or pendency of proceedings does not confer any right on the registering authority to withhold the documents. The satisfaction for the purpose of registration has to be wholly in terms of the provisions of the relevant Acts and not beyond that. Be that as it may, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent that since there is an order of injunction granted by the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, in O.S. No. 209 of 2005, directing not to alienate the land admeasuring Ac.16.06 guntas in Sy. No. 181 and Acs.6.32 guntas in Sy. No. 175 of Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District, the respondent refused to entertain and register the document presented by the petitioners, and no exception can be taken thereto, and more so having regard to the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 620, dated 28.09.2002, which prohibited Sub-Registrar from registering the document when there is an injunction order from the Court. This contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. G.O. Ms. No. 620, dated 28.09.2002 and G.O. Ms. No. 497, dated 07.04.2003, issued by the Government, which amended S.O. 219 of A.P. Registration Manual, merely directed the Registering Oﬃcer not to entertain any document for registration if there is an order of injunction granted against him by the competent civil Court or High Court. Thus, it is clear that the Registering Oﬃcer is empowered to refuse to entertain and register a document only if there is an order of injunction prohibiting him from entertaining any document, operating against him. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no order of injunction granted by the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, in O.S. No. 209 of 2005 operating against the respondent. In fact, the said suit is between two private parties, who are not in any way connected to the documents presented by the petitioners for registration, and in fact, neither the petitioners nor the respondent are parties to the said suit, and that being so, I fail to understand how the order granted by the civil Court in the said suit, would operate against the respondent, prohibiting him from entertaining and registering the documents presented by the petitioners for registration. Since there is no order of injunction granted by the Senior Cvil Judge, Sangareddy, in O.S. 209 of 2005 against the respondent, the action of the respondent in refusing to entertain and register the documents presented by the petitioners for registration on that score, cannot be sustained. In fact, under the Registration Act, the Registering Oﬃcer, cannot refuse to register a document when presented for registration, except in the case, where the property sought to be registered under the document, is covered by the properties mentioned in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, and in the event, the Registering Oﬃcer, refuses to register a document, he has to pass an order under Section 71 of the Registration Act by recording his reasons for refusal to register, which is appealable under Section 72 of the Registration Act, and any person aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal by the appellate authority, has to approach the competent civil Court under Section 77 of the Registration Act. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, and it is accordingly allowed. The respondent is directed to entertain and register the documents presented by the petitioners for registration in respect of the lands in question, and register the same, if it is otherwise in order, without reference to the ground on which he now refused to entertain and register, and in the event, he has any objection to entertain and register the documents on the ground other than the one now taken, it is open for him to make an endorsement to that eﬀect, record reasons and communicate the same to the petitioners. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 1st August, 2008 KSR [1] AIR 1970 ORISSA 22 [2] AIR 2005 SC 3401 [3] 2003 (3) L.S. 90 [4] 2000 (2) ALD 725 = 2000 (2) ALT 64 (DB)