Order: The petitioners, who are minors, are represented by their mother and natural guardian. The petitioner’s mother, who had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that the petitioners succeeded to the property in question from their ancestors. While so, she states that the petitioners came to know that their father executed a registered sale agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 09.10.2008 in respect of the property in question in favour of respondent No.1, who on the strength thereof, is seeking to alienate the property in question. On coming to know of this, she states that the petitioners got issued paper publication dated 10.04.2008 cautioning the general public from entering into any sort of agreements with respondents No.1, and they also filed suit in O.S. No. 495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, seeking permanent injunction, and pending thereof, in I.A. No. 269 of 2008, they obtained interim injunction, and thereafter, approached respondent No.2, namely Sub Registrar, Gundala, requesting him not to entertain any sale deed in respect of the land in question, but they were informed by respondent No.2 that he has no right to stop the registration of sale deed for any property, except when there is a direction from the Court restraining him from entertaining any documents for registration in respect of the property covered by the proceedings before it. Hence, assailing the said action of respondent No.2, as being illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though respondent No.2 is not a party to the proceedings in O.S. No.495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, but having regard to the fact that there is an ad interim injunction order granted by the said Court in I.A. No. 269 of 2008 on 18.04.2008 in respect of the property in question, the same is binding on respondent No.2, and therefore, respondent No.2 cannot contend that since there is no direction to him, he has no power to stop registration of a document. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that S.O. No. 219 of the A.P. Registration Manual, Prohibits the Registering Officer from entertaining documents for registration when there in an injunction order granted by the competent Civil Court or the High Court, but having regard to the fact that respondent No.2 is not a party to the suit in O.S. No. 495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, the order of interim injunction, granted by the said Court in I.A. No. 269 of 2008, is not binding on respondent No.2, and he is not under an obligation to stop registration of the property in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.2. The transactions relating to transfer of immovable property is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908, while the title, capacity of the parties to transfer the property etc. are governed by different laws such as Law of Succession, Testamentary or otherwise, etc. The normal understanding of the general public is that once a document is registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 they get title to the property. But that is not so. The execution of or registration of a document by itself will not create any new title, and the execution of or registration of such document covering an immovable property is governed by the principle Nemo Dat Quad Non Habet, which means ‘no person can transfer/pass a better title than what he possess in the property so transferred’. Given the fact that transfer of an immovable property is governed by this principles, the registering authority when receives a document and registers it, does not decide title of the persons executing the document. Therefore, mere registration of a document will not confer any new title, and in the case of any title disputes arising out of such registrations, they are subject to and decided under the provisions of various other laws, governing the transfer of immovable property. Therefore, mere registration of a document will not confer any new title, and in the case of any title disputes arising out of such registrations, they are subject to and decided under the provisions of various other laws, governing the transfer of immovable property. The Orissa High Court in Jogi Das v. Fakir Panda [1] had occasion to consider the object and purpose of the Registration Act, and having considered the same, it held as follows: The object and purpose of the Registration Act, amongst other things, is to provide a method of public registration of documents so as to give information to people regarding legal rights and obligations arising or affecting a particular property, and to perpetuate documents, which may afterwards be of legal importance, and also prevent fraud. From the above, it is clear that registration of a document, merely records the transaction and gives information to people regarding legal rights and obligations arising or affecting a particular property, which in future would be of legal importance and prevent playing of fraud. The apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [2], held that the Registration Act only strikes at the documents and not at the transactions, that the whole aim of the Act is to govern documents and not the transactions embodied therein, and thereby only the notice of the public is drawn. A learned Judge of this court in Raghu Praveen & Ors. v. R.D.O., Kakinada [3], held as follows: Except in a case where a property is notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the registering authority has no power to refuse to register a document presented to him as regards the property within his jurisdiction, if the document is otherwise in the order, and if there is no dispute as to the identity of the executant. In Mandadi Nirmala v. District Collector, Hyderabad [4], a Division Bench of this court was dealing with a case where the registering authority refused to register the document on the ground that the proceedings relating to the subject matter of the document were pending in the Land Grabbing Court. In Mandadi Nirmala v. District Collector, Hyderabad [4], a Division Bench of this court was dealing with a case where the registering authority refused to register the document on the ground that the proceedings relating to the subject matter of the document were pending in the Land Grabbing Court. Speaking for the Bench, Sri Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi (as he then was), observed as under: “We therefore, direct the Sub-Registrar to consider the question of registration of the documents in the light of the Registration Act after referring to the objection raised by the Mandal Revenue Officer and to pass appropriate orders according to law. In case it is decided to register and release the documents appropriate endorsements shall be made on the documents referring to the factum of objection by the revenue department and the over-ruling of objection. It is made clear that the alienations in question will be subject to the result of the land grabbing case said to be pending in the Special Court”. Therefore, the dispute as to title or pendency of proceedings does not confer any right on the registering authority to withhold the documents. The satisfaction for the purpose of registration has to be wholly in terms of the provisions of the relevant Acts and not beyond that. In Thummlachetty Builders and Developers (Pvt) Ltd. v. Commr and I.G. S & R [5], this Court considered the question whether the Registering authority would be justified in refusing to register a document when there is a civil dispute pending between parties and an order of injunction in operation, in the light of S.O. No. 219 of the A.P. Registration Manual, on which the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 in the instant case, also has placed heavy reliance to justify the action of the Registering authority in refusing to register the document. Having considered the said question in the light of S.O. 219 of the A.P. Registration Manual, held as follows: S.O. No. 219 can be pressed into service when there is an order of injunction granted by the competent civil Court or High Court against the Registering Officer from entertaining any document for registration in respect of the property covered by its orders. In the instant case, neither the petitioner nor the Registering Officer has been made party to the suit in O.S. No. 455 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga ReddyDistrict, and the injunction orders dated 26.4.2005 granted therein operated only against the parties to the said suit, and not to any other person, much less the Registering Officer. This apart, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said suit was dismissed for default on 1.4.2008. In the instant case, though the petitioners filed suit in O.S. No. 495 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and obtained interim injunction orders in I.A. No. 269 of 2008, the fact remains, they obtained such an order only against the respondent No.1, and not respondent No.2-Sub Registrar. S.O. 219 of the A.P. Registration Manual, prohibits the Registering Officer from registering documents only when there is an order of injunction operating against him. The petitioners, admittedly, leave alone obtaining orders of temporary injunction against respondent No.2-Sub Registrar, have not even made him party-defendant in the said suit. S.O. 219 of the A.P. Registration Manual, prohibits the Registering Officer from registering documents only when there is an order of injunction operating against him. The petitioners, admittedly, leave alone obtaining orders of temporary injunction against respondent No.2-Sub Registrar, have not even made him party-defendant in the said suit. The petitioners having not made respondent No.2-Sub Registrar as party-defendant in the suit filed by them, and there being no order of interim injunction granted operating against them by the civil Court, cannot seek directions to respondent No.2-Sub Registrar not to register any documents, in respect of the property covered by the orders in I.A. No. 269 of 2008 in O.S. No. 495 of 2008, and no exception can be taken to the action of respondent No.2 in taking steps to stop the registration of the property, particularly when under the provisions of the Registration Act, the Registering Officer, is not empowered to refuse to register a document when presented for registration, except in the case, the property sought to be registered under the document, is covered by any of the properties mentioned in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, and in the event, the Registering Officer, refuses to register a document, he has to pass an order under Section 71 of the Registration Act by recording his reasons for refusal to register, which is appealable under Section 72 of the Registration Act, and any person aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal by the appellate authority, has to approach the competent civil Court under Section 77 of the Registration Act. Therefore, no directions can be given to the registering not to register the documents to be presented in respect of the land in question. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to place on record its anguish and concern as to the manner in which the unscrupulous elements are taking advantage of the loopholes in the Registration Act, 1908 to cheat the gullible and innocent persons by selling the same land to more than one person. In olden days, transactions relating to transfer of moveable and immovable property, by way of sale, gift, lease etc., were entered into by the parties thereto by word of mouth or by reducing the terms and conditions of such transactions into writing on a white piece of paper, attested by persons known to them personally, as witness to the said transactions. Such oral or written agreements, were implemented in letter and spirit, without there being any scope for dispute. The degree of trust between the parties to the agreements was of the highest standard, in that they mutually respected the terms and conditions of the agreements. The parties to the agreements stood by what they have agreed orally or in writing, and in case of disputes arising out of such agreements, they used to be resolved mutually by themselves or with the intervention of elders or witnesses to the agreements, without taking recourse to the remedy in any court of law. Even in those days, some of the parties got the documents entered into between them, registered. Before the coming into force of the Registration Act, 1908, which was enacted under the British regime, and came into force from 01.01.1909, the enactments relating to registration of documents were scattered in about seven enactments, and all such provisions were collected, brought together and incorporated in the present Registration Act, 1908. The Registration Act, 1908 is an Act, which strikes at documents and not at transactions. The principal object of registering a document is to give notice to the world that such a document has been executed, to prevent fraud and forgery and to secure a reliable and complete account of all transactions effecting the title to the property. Its further object is to provide a method of public registration of documents so as to give information to people regarding legal rights and obligations arising or affecting a particular property, and to perpetuate documents, which may afterwards be of legal importance, and also to prevent fraud. Registration sought to provide inviolability and importance to certain classes of documents. Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, certain documents, the value of transaction of which is one hundred rupees and upwards, are required to be registered compulsorily, and the effect of non-registration of such documents, is stated in Section 49 thereof. Thus from the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908, by registration of a document, it was intended to create legal rights and obligations which may be of legal importance in future and to prevent fraud and forgery. Thus from the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908, by registration of a document, it was intended to create legal rights and obligations which may be of legal importance in future and to prevent fraud and forgery. The parties who got the documents registered under the Registration Act, 1908, by paying registration fee and stamp duty, felt assured that they derived title to the property purchased by them and that none can interfere with their possession and enjoyment thereof. It is under this impression, the parties get the documents registered, and derive satisfaction that the property purchased by them was genuine. The Registration Act, 1908 stood the test of time and worked well for nearly a century. However, in recent times, with greed to make more money due to multi-fold appreciation in the value of property, and taking advantage of the loopholes in the Registration Act, 1908, several acts of fraud and forgery are being committed. Till recently, any dispute between the parties in relation to a transaction, was purely between them. However, the spiraling rise in value of real estate, has added a new class of disputes to the court docket, which in fact, are arising between the parties due to the conduct of the owner of the property, who has resorted to selling of the same piece of land to several persons by getting them registered under the Registration Act, 1908 again and again. Not a day passes, when cases of the nature, as stated above, are not heard. Though the Registration Act, 1908 sought to prevent fraud and forgery, unfortunately, there is no mechanism provided thereunder for curbing the multi-registrations of the same property by the same person to several persons, in that the Registration Act, 1908 merely provides that when a document is presented for registration, the Registering Officer has no other go, but to register the same. The acts of the owner of the property in indulging in multi-sales and registrations of the same property to several persons, is nothing short of cheating. While such acts of the owners of the property, should be made punishable, the loopholes and silence of the law in that regard, has resulted in the breachers of the law going unpunished. The acts of the owner of the property in indulging in multi-sales and registrations of the same property to several persons, is nothing short of cheating. While such acts of the owners of the property, should be made punishable, the loopholes and silence of the law in that regard, has resulted in the breachers of the law going unpunished. Since the government collects registration fee and stamp duty, it is their bounden duty to ensure that the purchasers interest is protected from the evil intention of the sellers, who are resorting to multi-sale and registrations, taking advantage of the loopholes in the law. May be, the drafters of the law, which was drafted 100 years ago, did not foresee that disputes of the nature now being presented before the courts, would crop up. This Court is not a law making institution, and cannot make a law for curbing such frauds. In a democratic country like ours, the power of legislation, is vested in the Legislature. It is also empowered to amend the laws keeping in view the changing needs of the people. Keeping in view the nature of frauds and forgeries that emanate out of implementation of an Act, the Legislature has to take suitable steps to amend the law, in such a manner that frauds and forgeries, do not recur, by providing for a foolproof mechanism in the law and thereby ensure that unscrupulous elements do not abuse the process and misuse the law. Unfortunately, the governments that be have not taken any steps in that direction. It is hoped that the government will at least now take appropriate steps to amend the law in such a manner that the interests of the parties who purchase the properties from the rightful owners and get them registered by paying huge amounts to the government, are protected. With the observations as above, made in public interest, the writ petition is dismissed. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, for taking appropriate steps in the matter. No costs.