IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24721 of 2008 Between: Smt.R.Lingamma W/o.Late Yedukondalu R/o.Sandhya Hotel Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Registrar, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. 2 R.Nageswara Rao S/o.Late R.Venkata Narsaiah R/o.Backside Geetanjali Studio, Vijayawada Road, Jaggaiahpet. 3 R.Jaganmohan Rao S/o.Late R.Venkata Narsaiah R/o.Ajantha Hotel, Jaggaiahpet. 4 Smt.R.Alivelumanga Tayaru W/o.Sri R.Jaganmohan Rao R/o.Ajantha Hotel, Jaggaiahpet. 5 P.Nageswara Rao Gupta S/o.Sri P.Subba Rao Flat No.1, R.K. Towers, Brahman Street, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by directing the respondent No.1 to declare the sale deeds executed by Respondent No.2 to 4 in favour of Respondent No.5 and third parties i.e., Sale Deed Nos. 3135/2006, 560/2008, 3408/2008, 3409/2008, 3559/2008, 3560/2008, 4071/2008, 4072/2008, 4533/2008, 4534/2008, 4535/2008 pertaining to the land to the extent of 1 Acre, 68 Guntas in R.S.No. 338, situated at Jaggaiahpet town, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District as null and void in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.UDAYA BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction to the 1st respondent-Sub-Registrar to declare the sale deed document Nos.3135/2006, 560/2008, 3408/2008, 3409/2008, 3559/2008, 3560/2008, 4071/2008, 4072/2008, 4533/2008, 4534/2008 and 4535/2008 executed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in favour of the 5th respondent and third parties pertaining to the petitioner’s land in an extent of Ac.01.68 guntas in R.S.No.338 situated in Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District, as null and void. The petitioner asserts that her late father-in-law, Ramisetty Venkata Narsaiah had an agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1.68 guntas in R.S.No.338 situated in Jaggaiahpet Town and Mandal, Krishna District. After the demise of her father-in-law and her husband, she and her children filed O.S.No.152 of 2006 for Partition of the land in question along with an application in I.A.No.315 of 2006 seeking a direction to the respondents therein not to alienate the suit schedule property and the application is still pending. Taking the advantage of the pendency of the application, respondents 2 to 4, who claim themselves to be owners of the land in question, are trying to execute the sale deeds in favour of the 5th respondent and third parties in respect of the land in question. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent-Sub Registrar is entertaining the sale of the plots situated in the land in question by way of registering the documents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1st respondent. The law is well settled that there is no power conferred on the registering authority to refuse to register a document when presented for registration, except in respect of the classes of documents mentioned in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, which are prohibited from being registered and for the circumstances as mentioned in Section 35 thereof. If the registering authority is allowed to refuse to register the documents, then it amounts to permitting him to decide title disputes, which power, admittedly is vested in the civil Courts. Therefore, no direction can be given to the Sub Registrar, not to register the documents presented by the unoﬃcial respondents. If the petitioner feels that if the documents, the non-registration, for which she ﬁled writ petition, are registered, her rights would be adversely aﬀected, then in such an event, she can avail the remedies available to her under law before the competent civil Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of any documents in respect of the land in question, she is at liberty to avail the remedies available to her under law before the competent civil Court. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 12th November, 2008 bcj