THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22593 of 2011 ORDER: Failure on the part of the respondent to receive the documents presented by the petitioner for registration, whereby sale of land of an extent of Ac.2.00 cts in Sy. No197 of Gopavaram village, Proddatur Mandal, Y.S.R. District was sought to be eﬀected, and in not registering the documents, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be the G.P.A. holder of three individuals (T. Subbi Reddy, Ch. Ravindranadh Reddy and R. Chandra Obul Reddy) all of whom are said to be the joint owners of agricultural land of an extent of Ac.2.00 cts in Sy. No.197. One Sri Ch. Krishna Mohan Reddy is said to have ﬁled O.S. No.191 of 2011 before the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, against these individuals including the petitioner, seeking declaration of title in respect of an extent of Ac.0.23 cts of land in Sy. No.197 of Gopavaram, and to have obtained an order of temporary injunction in I.A. No.928 of 2011 dated 13.06.2011. As the Sub-Registrar refused to register the documents presented for registration, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondent, the petitioner’s assertion that he had presented the documents for registration is denied. Reference is made to G.O.Ms. No.497 dated 07.04.2003 amending clause (b) of Standing Order 219 whereunder it was ordered that, if the High Court or any other Civil Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of the Registering Oﬃcers, the Registering Oﬃcer should not proceed with registration. It is in this context that the respondents state that, since there is an order of the Civil Court granting temporary injunction and as the petitioner is seeking registration of land of an extent of Ac.2.00 cts in the very same survey number in which the suit schedule land in O.S. No.191 of 2011 forms part of, it is only if an order is obtained from the Civil Court, can the said documents be registered. Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would state that, while the petitioner’s land of an extent of Ac.2.00 cts is diﬀerent from the land of Ac.0.23 cts claimed by Sri Krishnamohan Reddy, the petitioner would forego, for the present, his right to seek registration of an extent of Ac.0.23 cts which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No.191 of 2011, and it would suﬃce if the respondent is directed to register the documents presented for registration with regards sale of land of the remaining extent of Ac.1.77 cts. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein is not a party to the suit in O.S. No.191 of 2011. The order of the Civil Court, on which reliance is placed by the respondent, is an order of temporary injunction, and not an order prohibiting the petitioner herein from alienating the subject land. Interpreting standing order 219 of the A.P. Registration Manual, this Court in Thummiachetty Builders and Developers (Pvt) Ltd. v. Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps & Registration[1] and Tirumala Venkata Reddaiah Chowdary v. Potla Krishna Prasad[2] held that it is only if the registering oﬃcer is a party to the suit, and there is an order of injunction operating against him, would he be precluded from registering the documents; and in cases where he is not even a party to the suit the registering oﬃcer was not empowered to refuse to register the documents presented for registration, except where the documents sought to be registered are prohibited from being registered under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. In the light of the law laid down by this Court the respondent was not justiﬁed in refusing to register the documents presented for registration. In any event mere registration does not confer title, and it is always open to the parties to the suit to claim the property in accordance with law. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to direct the respondent to receive the documents presented by the petitioner for registration, consider registering the document for an extent of Ac.1.77 cts, as against the petitioners earlier request for registration of AC.2.00 cts, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder and in terms of the observations made hereinabove. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 24.11.2011 MRKR [1] 2008(6) ALD 818 [2] Judgment in W.P. No.9045 of 2008 dated 30.12.2008