Subscribe

Topic

Property

2 judgments · all topics

Telangana High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Property ★ Editor's pick

Telangana HC directs registration of a plot sale deed refused as unapproved layout, subject to regularisation charges

The question: Can a Sub-Registrar refuse to register a sale deed because the plot lies in an unapproved layout and no earlier registered document is shown?

The Telangana High Court has directed a Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed that he had refused to register because the plot lay in an unapproved layout. Justice Pulla Karthik relied on the common order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 16310 of 2019 and batch and on the Supreme Court judgment in K. Gopi, which say that a registering authority can refuse a document only on grounds found in the Registration Act, 1908 and is not concerned with the title of the person executing it. The order was passed on 29 September 2026 in a writ petition taken up for disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both sides. The petitioner, Peguda Narasimha, a 78-year-old retired employee, said he owns Plot No. 8, measuring 166 sq. yards, in Sai Nagar Colony, Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, under an Agreement of Sale dated 22 August 2026. On 7 September 2026 he presented a sale deed in favour of a purchaser to the Sub-Registrar, Kapra. The document was kept pending and then refused by an intimation dated 11 September 2026 under Section 71 of the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar relied on a memo of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps of 26 August 2020, under which new plots in unapproved layouts are not to be registered unless they were earlier acquired through valid registered documents or have been regularised. The Court's order comes with conditions: the petitioner must pay the charges due under G.O.Ms.No.28 of 20 February 2025 and comply with the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act, and the registering authority remains free to refuse the document on any other ground, which it must record.

Disposed of WP/32411/2026
Telangana High Court ·1 Oct 2026 ·Property ★ Editor's pick

Telangana HC: Property bought in one legal heir's name without proof of self-earning falls in the joint family pool

The question: Are Schedule A, C and D properties, which the eldest son accepted as ancestral, available for partition as joint family property?

The Telangana High Court has dismissed an appeal that had been pending since 2000 in a family partition dispute, holding that once a joint family nucleus is shown to exist, any property purchased in the name of one legal heir, without evidence of self-earning, falls in the common pool of joint family properties. Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao confirmed the judgment and decree of 1 December 1999 of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, in O.S. No. 1 of 1994, which had ordered partition of all four schedules of property. The suit was filed by the mother, her youngest son, her daughter and the youngest son's wife against the eldest son and his wife. They said that land left by the family's father, Yeddula Yella Reddy, who died without a will on 9 September 1989, and other properties purchased later, was joint family property. The eldest son accepted that Schedules A, C and D were ancestral, but said that Schedule B was bought with his own funds and was his self-acquired property. The mother died on 17 March 1996, while the suit was pending, after leaving a registered Will in favour of her youngest son. The trial court decreed the suit and directed the plaintiffs to apply for an Advocate Commissioner to divide the properties by metes and bounds for a final decree. The eldest son and his wife appealed. The appeal was reserved on 2 July 2026 and decided on 1 October 2026.

Dismissed AS/191/2000