Judgment :- The petitioners state that they have purchased different extents of land in Survey No.174/1 of Pitchukulagudipadu Village and Survey No.341/B of Markapur Town from the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, 3rd respondent herein under three different sale deeds. The 4th respondent proposed to sell some of the properties situated at Markapur on the one hand and Nellore on the other hand in favour of respondents 5 to 8. Accordingly, four different agreements of sale-cum-G.P.A. dated 15.04.2010 were entered into between the parties and the same were presented before the Joint Sub-Registrar, 1st respondent herein. The documents were received and assigned P.Nos.73 to 76 of 2010. The petitioners raised an objection as to the very permissibility of registration of the documents by the 1st respondent. According to them, the properties were not situated within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent and registration of such documents is prohibited under Section 28 of the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’). It is in this background, that the petitioners seek a direction to the 1st respondent not to register the documents bearing P.Nos.73 to 76 of 2010. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. He has narrated, in brief, the background of the transactions in relation to said lands. He contends that if a document purports to deal with the items of properties situated within the territorial jurisdiction of two different Sub-Registrars, it can be presented for registration before the office of one such Sub-Registrar, as provided for under Section 28 of the Act. The contesting respondents i.e., respondents 5 to 8 have also filed a counter affidavit almost on the same lines. Heard Sri. C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri. Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8. When the Country was under the British rule, the missionaries have acquired vast extents of land particularly in urban areas in Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. For the administration of such properties, agencies like respondents 3 and 4, came into existence. Enormous litigation has ensued in the matter of transfer of such properties or administration thereof. The same item of property appears to have been purchased by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent on the one hand and respondents 5 to 8 from the 4th respondent on the other hand. Enormous litigation has ensued in the matter of transfer of such properties or administration thereof. The same item of property appears to have been purchased by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent on the one hand and respondents 5 to 8 from the 4th respondent on the other hand. However in this writ petition, the limited issue is, whether it is competent for the 1st respondent to entertain and register the documents in relation to the properties, which are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of his office as well as those outside his jurisdiction, arises for consideration. The normal rule is that a document pertaining to an item of immovable property can be presented before the Sub-Registrar, within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. In other words, a Sub-Registrar cannot entertain any document in respect of the property, which is not within his jurisdiction. Where however, the document purports to deal with several items, which are situated within the jurisdiction of different Sub-Registrars, it is permissible for the parties to present the document before any of such Sub-Registrars. Section 28 of Act makes this aspect clear and it reads. 28. Place of registering documents relating to land. Save as in this Part otherwise provided, every, document mentioned in Section 17, sub-section (1), [clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), Section 17 of sub-section (2), in so far as such document affects immovable property,] and Section 18, [clauses (a), (b) and (cc)], shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate. The principle underlying Section 28 of the Act is almost similar to the one enunciated under Section 17 of C.P.C. According to that provision, if a suit is to be filed in respect of immovable properties situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, it may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated. Therefore it cannot be said that the presentation of the documents by respondents 5 to 8 before the 1st respondent is in any way illegal. It may be true that the parallel transactions have taken place in respect of same item property. That however is not at all the concern of the Sub-Registrar. Therefore it cannot be said that the presentation of the documents by respondents 5 to 8 before the 1st respondent is in any way illegal. It may be true that the parallel transactions have taken place in respect of same item property. That however is not at all the concern of the Sub-Registrar. Rule 58 of the A.P. Rules framed under the Registration Act mandates that it is not part of the duty of the registering officer to enquire into the validity of the document brought before him for registration. It is for the concerned parties to work out their remedies by approaching the Courts of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.