Judgment : The land in Survey No.228 of Chandole Revenue Village, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Guntur District was held by one Sri Mohammed Ghalib. He sold that land in favour of the first petitioner in the year 1991. The first petitioner executed sale deed in favour of the third petitioner through sale deed dated 16.10.2010 in relation to that land. It is stated that the second petitioner was owner of 50 cents of land in Survey No.226 in the said village having inherited the same from his father, who is said to have purchased in the year 1968. The second petitioner sold that to the fourth petitioner on 16.10.2010. 2. Both the documents dated 16.10.2010 were presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Pittalavanipalem, the third respondent herein. He refused to register the documents on the ground that he received information from the Inspector of Wakfs, Guntur, the fifth respondent herein, to the effect that the said lands are owned by a Wakf Institution. 3. The petitioners state that the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board, the fourth respondent herein filed O.S.No.382 of 1973 before the Court of Additional District Munsiff, Tenali in respect of the said lands for recovery of possession and that the suit, along with other similar matters were decreed on 22.04.1978 and that A.S.No.69 of 1978 and batch filed against the decrees were allowed on 16.01.1981 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tenali upholding the title of private individuals. Second Appeal No.580 of 1981 filed by the Wakf Board is said to have been dismissed by this Court. The petitioners further contend that in recognition of their rights, ryotwaripattas under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, were issued and Pattadar Pass Books were also issued in their favour. The petitioners, finally plead that there is no basis for the fifth respondent to claim right or title as regards the said land; much less for the third respondent to refuse registration of the documents. 4. On behalf of respondents 4 and 5 a detailed counter affidavit is filed. They admit that suits were filed in respect of the same lands and the decrees passed therein were set aside in the appeal. It is however stated that the relief claimed in the suit is only for recovery of possession and declaration of title did not figure therein. They admit that suits were filed in respect of the same lands and the decrees passed therein were set aside in the appeal. It is however stated that the relief claimed in the suit is only for recovery of possession and declaration of title did not figure therein. They further submit that the properties were held by the Wakf and that the then Muthawalli had unlawfully transferred the properties. 5. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 6. The Andhra Pradesh State Legislature amended the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act') by inserting Section 22-A through A.P Act 19 of 2007. The effect thereof is that the registration of any documents pertaining to the lands/properties mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) thereof, is prohibited. The lands held by Charitable and Endowments Institutions and Wakf Institutions figure in clause (d) of sub section (1) of Section 22-A of the Act. Once the concerned Revenue, Endowment or Wakf Authorities furnish the list of properties to the Registering Authority, the latter has no option but to refuse the registration. In the instant case, the registration of the documents presented by the petitioners is withheld on the basis of the information furnished by the fifth respondent. 7. If no adjudication or determination, as to the nature or character of a property in question has taken place on an earlier occasion, the remedy of the petitioners would have been to seek declaration of their rights before the proper forum or Court. The record discloses that in respect of the properties covered by the two sale deeds presented by the petitioners for registration, the fourth respondent filed O.S.No.382 of 1973 for recovery of possession. Similar suits were filed in respect of other items of property. Though the trial Court decreed the suits, the appellate Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits. The judgments and decrees passed by the appellate Court were confirmed by this Court in the second appeal and thereby the dismissal of the suit became final. That being the case, the fourth respondent cannot be permitted to still assert that the properties belong to Wakf Institution. 8. The judgments and decrees passed by the appellate Court were confirmed by this Court in the second appeal and thereby the dismissal of the suit became final. That being the case, the fourth respondent cannot be permitted to still assert that the properties belong to Wakf Institution. 8. The principal ground urged on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 is that the relief claimed in O.S.No.382 of 1973 was only for recovery of possession and that there was no occasion for the trial Court to examine the question of title. This may not be correct. The relief of recovery of possession is larger in scope than the one for mere declaration of title. It is only when the plaintiffs in a suit establish their title, that they can seek recovery of possession. Once the relief of recovery of possession was denied, respondents 4 and 5 cannot still assert title in the property. 9. At any rate, the registration of document does not alter the situation on the ground, vis-à-vis the respondents 4 and 5. If petitioners 1 and 2 were holding the property till the date of registration of documents, it would be petitioners 3 and 4, who become the owners. Naturally, the transaction does not bind the persons or agencies, who are not parties to it. 10. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the third respondent is directed to receive the documents that may be presented by the petitioners and process the same in accordance with law, without applying prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Act. It is however directed that the documents shall not affect the rights of third parties. 11. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.