IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 715 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/05/2009 in WP NO : 7014 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Government of A.P. rep. by The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Registrar's Office (O.B.), Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Government of A.P. rep. by The District Registrar, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3 Government of A.P. rep. by The Tahsildar, Machilipatnam Mandal, Machilipatnam Krishna District. .... APPELLANTS AND Ravi Benarjee S/o.Krishnaiah R/o.Krishnaraopet H/o. Rudravaram, Bandaru Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent: MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 715 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 01-5-2009 passed in WPMP.No.9189 of 2008 in WP.No. 7014 of 2008 by the learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned single Judge set aside the impugned order passed by the appellant in C.No. 7 vide sale deed P.No.42/2007 dated 14-09-2007 and granted interim direction as prayed for. 2. The main writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the Lr.No. 7 dated 13-3-2008 issued by the first respondent in refusing to register the sale deed P.No.42/2007, dated 14-09- 2007 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to direct the first respondent to release the registered sale deed P.No.42 of 2007 dated 14-09-2007 to the writ petitioner and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act and that two separate sale deeds for registration were presented before the Registering Officer and the schedule of the two documents is one and the same but the executants and the claimants are different and therefore, the two documents were refused to register by passing speaking order on 13-3-2008. The refusal order was passed on the ground that there is prima facie dispute with regard to the ownership of the land and it is very difficult to identify the person executing the documents and since the two documents are presented on the very same day and if the documents are registered it would result in causing loss and injury to a person and therefore by taking into consideration Section 81 of the Registration Act and since there is a dispute with regard to the ownership as well as there is difficulty to identify the executant vis-à-vis his right to execute the document, a reasoned order was passed under section 71 of the Act. The learned Government Pleader further argued that in view of the Proceedings of Tahsildar, the executants have no right over the property and therefore, there is a prima facie dispute with regard to the title, whereby refusal order was passed under section 71 of the Registration Act. 4. Having heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue as well as the learned counsel for the respondent- writ petitioner, Sri G.Krishna Murthy and as can be seen from the material on record, it appears that the Joint Sub-Registrar doubted the title of predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner’s vendor and basing on that refusal order was passed and the document No. P42 of 2007 and P.43 of 2007 were refused for registration on 14-9-2007. If the vendee is satisfied with the title of the vendor, it is not for the Registrar to question and doubt the said title. It is for the parties to adjudicate the matter before appropriate forum and not by the Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar or the Tahsildar to decide the title of the vendor. The learned single Judge has rightly pointed out that the enquiry into title of the vendor of the writ petitioner is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar. The learned single Judge has clearly observed that under the Registration Act, the Registrar has to merely ensure compliance of the Registration Act and Rules. Therefore, the first appellant is directed to release the registered sale deed P.No.42 of 2007, dated 14-09-2007 to the respondent-writ petitioner forthwith. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the finding of the learned Single Judge, we are the of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 6. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 10-06-2009. I s L N B : Furnish CC in two days. B/o. I s L