Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Sub-Registrar Cannot Arbitrarily Refuse Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reaffirms Legal Duty Under Registration Act

11 September 2024 2:54 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a judgment delivered on September 9, 2024, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the obligations of Sub-Registrars under the Registration Act of 1908, directing the Sub-Registrar of Renigunta, Tirupathi District, to process a sale deed submitted by the petitioner, Smt. Muniammal. The Sub-Registrar had initially refused to accept the sale deed without providing any reason. Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad emphasized that Sub-Registrars are legally bound to either register the document or provide a reasoned refusal.

The petitioner, Smt. Muniammal, had purchased property and submitted a sale deed dated August 5, 2024, to the Sub-Registrar in Renigunta, Tirupathi District, for registration. The Sub-Registrar declined to accept the document without offering any explanation. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri Nagendra Babu Paragati, filed a writ petition (No. 18105 of 2024) seeking a directive from the court to compel the Sub-Registrar to accept and process the sale deed. The petitioner also cited a prior judgment from the same court, Salimeni Ravindra v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (W.P. No. 10392 of 2021), to support her claim.

Justice Gannamaneni noted that the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to accept the sale deed violated Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates that Sub-Registrars either register a document presented or provide written reasons for refusal. The court referenced the Salimeni Ravindra case, which clearly outlined the duties of Sub-Registrars under this provision of law.

"The Registrar or Sub-Registrar is under an obligation to process the document and, if unwilling to register, must issue an order of refusal along with recorded reasons," the court highlighted, reaffirming the procedures outlined in Rules 161 to 164 of the Registration Act.

The court stressed that the law provides a structured process to handle such registrations, and the arbitrary refusal to accept documents undermines legal certainty. "The Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to process a document without due cause," the court observed, while directing that such refusals must be made in accordance with the procedure defined under the Registration Act and properly recorded in official books.

Justice Gannamaneni further directed that the petitioner submit the court’s judgment and the prior judgment from the Salimeni Ravindra case to ensure the Sub-Registrar follows the mandated process in this and future cases.

Quotes from the Judgment: "The procedure laid out in Section 71 of the Registration Act is clear—there is no room for arbitrary refusal. Sub-Registrars must either register the document or provide a reasoned refusal in a Speaking Order," observed Justice Gannamaneni.

The court’s decision reaffirms the responsibilities of Sub-Registrars and reinforces the rights of property owners to have their sale deeds processed in accordance with the law. The ruling mandates compliance from Sub-Registrars and serves as a crucial reminder of the obligations under the Registration Act, which are designed to provide transparency and fairness in property registration. The judgment is expected to streamline property transactions and prevent unwarranted refusals in future cases.

Date of Decision: September 9, 2024

Smt. Muniammal v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

 

Similar News