Judgment : The petitioner advanced certain amount to the 2nd respondent, by name Azam Pasha. As a measure of security for repayment of the amount, the 2nd respondent executed a deed of mortgage on 05.05.2005 in respect of an item of immovable property. However, thereafter, the 2nd respondent sold the said property in favour of the 3rd respondent through sale deed dated 04.03.2006. The mortgage deed as well as the sale deed were registered with the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent ought not to have registered the sale deed dated 04.03.2006, since the property is encumbered with mortgage and that mortgage deed is very much registered with his office. Heard Sri S.S.Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri N. Bharath Babu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. It is a matter of record that the 2nd respondent executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the petitioner. The transaction subsists, till it is redeemed or foreclosed. It is matter of record that the 2nd respondent executed a sale deed on 04.03.2006 in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner, in a way, finds fault with the 1st respondent in registering the sale deed. Firstly, the objection as to registration of the sale deed by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained. The reason is that it is not at all the duty or obligation of the registering authority to verify whether the vendor under the sale deed has any subsisting title. Rule 58 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act makes this aspect clear. The principal areas of verification by the registering authority would be (a) whether the requisite amount of stamp duty and registration charges are paid; and (b) whether the executant of the document has established his identify. He cannot at all delve into the question as to whether the transferor holds valid title to convey it to the transferee. Secondly, even where, the property is mortgaged, the mortgagor is not precluded from transferring it by way of sale. Neither under the Transfer of Property Act nor under any other Act, the sale of such properties is prohibited. The interest of mortgagee is very much protected in view of the fact that the transfer of the property by way of sale shall be subject to the burden of the mortgage. Neither under the Transfer of Property Act nor under any other Act, the sale of such properties is prohibited. The interest of mortgagee is very much protected in view of the fact that the transfer of the property by way of sale shall be subject to the burden of the mortgage. The right of the mortgagee to seek foreclosure of the mortgage would remain in tact. The legal consequences flowing out of the mortgage are attached to the property than to the individual. The only difference would be that instead of proceeding against the mortgagor, he may have to proceed against the transferee from the mortgagor. What gets transferred in such a case is ‘equity of redemption’. The purchaser of the property takes upon himself, the obligation to discharge the mortgage or to face the consequences on account of any failure in that behalf. 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.