Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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.

 

Latest Legal News