THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 2331 of 2008 Oral order: The petitioner states that she purchased an extent of Ac.2-27 gts of dry land in Sy. No. 1115/1 of Medchal Village and from one Sri. Battula Ramchander, under a registered sale deed on 08.01.2003. That she presented the sale deed for registration before the respondent, namely the Sub Registrar, Medchal, and as determined by him, she paid the stamp duty and registration fee. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent without registering the said document, kept it pending as Document No. P2/2003 on the ground that there is an order of status quo dated 17.06.2003, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, in respect of the land in question, in I.A. No. 1172 of 2003 in O.S. No. 542 of 2003. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land which is subject-matter of the suit in O.S. No. 542 of 2003 is diﬀerent from the land which he purchased from his vendor, and as such, the status quo order dated 17.06.2003, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, does not come in the way of the respondent registering the document presented by him, and as such, the action of the respondent in refusing to register the document presented by him for registration, and keeping the same pending, is illegal and arbitrary, and more so when the petitioner is not a party to the said suit. The respondent ﬁled counter. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated the counter averments. While admitting that the petitioner has presented the document for registration and that he has also paid the stamp duty and registration fee as determined by the respondent, submitted that the respondent refused to register the document presented by the petitioner because an order of status quo dated 17.06.2003, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, was produced before him by the plaintiﬀs therein, in which the vendor of the petitioner is shown as defendant No.3. He submitted that the order of status quo is in respect of the land in Sy. Nos. 115/1, 115/2, 1116 and 1119 of Medchal village, and even though the pattadar pass book produced by the vendor of the petitioner shows that he is the owner of the lands in Sy. Nos. 1115/1, 1115/4, 1118/3, 1119/3 and 1130, but in view of the order of status quo, which showed that the vendor of the petitioner is arrayed defendant No.3, the respondent fearing breach thereof, refused to register the document and kept it pending. He thus submitted that no fault can be found with the action of the respondent in not registering the document presented by the petitioner and keeping it pending without registering it. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 status quo granted by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, in I.A. No. 1172 of 2003 in O.S. No. 542 of 2005, in respect of the lands in Sy. Nos. 115/1, 115/2, 1118 and 1119, situated at Medchal, Rangareddy District, the respondent refused to entertain and register the document presented by the petitioner, particularly when the vendor of the petitioner is shown as defendant in the said suit, and no exception can be taken thereto. The stand taken by the respondent that when there is an order of injunction granted by the Court, the respondent cannot register the document presented for registration, cannot be accepted, because the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 620, dated 28.09.2002 and G.O. Ms. No. 497, dated 07.04.2003, issued orders amending S.O. 219 of A.P. Registration Manual, and the said amendment, 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 I Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, in I.A. No. 1172 of 2003 in O.S. No. 542 of 2003 operating against the respondent. In fact, the said suit is between two private parties, one of whom is said to be the vendor of the petitioner, and the order of status quo, granted by the said Court is only in respect of the property in Sy. No. 115/1, 115/2, 1118 and 1119 situated in Medchal village, while the lands purchased by the petitioner under the document are situated in Sy. Nos. 1115/4, 1118/3, 1119/3, 1130 and 1115/1 in Medchal village. That being so, I fail to understand how the status quo order granted by the civil Court in the said suit, would operate against the respondent muchless in respect of the land purchased by the petitioner, prohibiting him from entertaining and registering the documents presented by the petitioner for registration. Since there is no order of status quo granted by the I Senior Cvil Judge, Rangarddy, in I.A. No. 1172 of 2003 in O.S. 209 of 2035 against the respondent, the action of the respondent in refusing to register the document presented by the petitioner for registration on that ground, 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 document presented by the petitioner 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: 25th September, 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)