JUDGMENT: Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. The present Appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.No.16139 of 2025 refusing to register 3 sale deeds presented by the appellants for the purpose of registration. 2. The Writ Petitioners before the learned Single Judge assailed the Refusal Orders vide (i) Refusal Order No.2 vide letter No.123/2025 dated 16.05.2025, (2) Refusal Order No.3/2025 vide letter No.124/2025 dated 16.05.2025 and (3) Refusal Order No.4/2025 vide letter No.125/2025 dated 16.05.2025, with a consequential direction to respondent No.4 to receive and register the three Sale Deeds in respect of the property bearing Plot Nos.693 and694 in Sy.No.174 admeasuring 420 sq. yards situated at Sai Surya Enclave, MachaBollaram, Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (for short ‘the Schedule Property’). 3. It is the case of appellants/petitioners that on 05.08.1997, Appellant No.3 purchased the schedule property from one Mogulla Kistamma and 7 others through their agent M/s.Ravi Shankar Real Estates under registered sale deed. Subsequently, on 15.05.2025 Appellant Nos.1 and 2 purchased the schedule property from appellant No.3 for valuable consideration of Rs.39,54,000/- under three separate documents and are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. In the month of August, 2017, one P.Maladri along with his henchmen tried to trespass into the schedule property. Appellant No.3, on coming to know that multiple sale deeds were created on the subject property, filed a complaint against P.Maladri, Ch.Srinu, Ch.Srinivasa Babji, K.Ram Gopal Reddy, Muthu Lakshmi, M.Meena and the same was registered as FIR No.638 of 2017 of Cyberbabad, P.S. Alwal, and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the said encroachers for the offences under Sections 416, 427, 447, 464, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 IPC deleting the name of P.Maladri as his involvement in the matter of creation of false documents is not established and that he is an innocent buyer from accused Nos.2 and 3 viz., Sri Ch.Srinu and Sri Chilukuri Srinivas Babji, who are encroachers of the schedule property. 4. Upon coming to know of the fraud played, P.Maladri has entered into a settlement with the fraudsters Sri Chilukuri Srinivas Babji and after lodging of complaint by appellant No.3, agreed to take back the alleged sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- paid under the fabricated registered instrument and received a cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- out of Rs.21,00,000/-, and the said cheque was dishonoured. Upon coming to know of the fraud played, P.Maladri has entered into a settlement with the fraudsters Sri Chilukuri Srinivas Babji and after lodging of complaint by appellant No.3, agreed to take back the alleged sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- paid under the fabricated registered instrument and received a cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- out of Rs.21,00,000/-, and the said cheque was dishonoured. Then P.Maladri filed C.C.No.1517 of 2018 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal and gave up his rights over the schedule property. 5. Subsequently, P.Maladri filed O.S.No.427 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kushaiguda against appellant No.3 and three other fraudsters, who are alleged to be vendors of P.Maladri, for perpetual injunction, and the said suit was dismissed on 30.12.2024. 6. Appellant No.3 filed O.S.No.342 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Medchal-Malkajgiri against all fraudsters for cancellation of sale deed bearing Doc.No.845/2017dated 03.02.2017 and other documents. In O.S.No.342 of 2018. In the said suit, all defendants except P.Maladri remained exparte. P.Maladri filed written statement stating that his complicity in the matter of creation of sale deed is not established in the police investigation and that he filed the copy of charge sheet in CC No.940/2018 as document in the suit filed by appellant No.3. 7. The said P.Maladri is estopped from asserting or claiming any title, right of other interest of whatsoever in the schedule property, since he has given up his rights by entering into an arrangement with his purported vendor Chilukuri Srinivas Raju having agreed to take the refund of sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- and having initiated legal process for dishonor of cheque being part of Rs.21,00,000/-. Thus, it is the case of the appellants that the vendor of appellants is having unimpeachable right, title and interest over the schedule property and that appellant No.3 is free to deal with the property in her own right. Therefore, aggrieved by the Refusal Orders passed, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 8. Thus, it is the case of the appellants that the vendor of appellants is having unimpeachable right, title and interest over the schedule property and that appellant No.3 is free to deal with the property in her own right. Therefore, aggrieved by the Refusal Orders passed, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 8. Learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the material available on record, dismissed W.P.No.16139 of 2025 holding that respondent No.4 rightly rejected the documents presented by the appellants as appellant No.3 has no right over the subject property in view of the registered document No.845/2017 on the file of S.R.O., Balanagar alleged to be executed by her in favour of one Ch.Srinu and also subsequent transactions. It was further held that unless the said documents are cancelled by the competent Civil Court and the suit filed by appellant No.3 for cancellation of the said document is finalized before the Principal District Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri, appellant No.3 has no right to sell the subject property. 9. The learned Single Judge further held that mere filing of charge sheet against Ch.Srinu and others in the criminal case cannot be taken as conclusive proof as the same is pending, and the same can be decided by the competent Civil Court where appellant No.3 has filed a civil suit for cancellation of the registered document, and if appellant No.3 obtains a favourable order in her favour in the suit, she has right to sell the subject property. 10. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present Appeal is filed. 11. Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Pearl Law Associates appearing for the appellants contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is without appreciation of undisputed facts borne out of clinching evidence and that the learned Single Judge committed patent illegality in observing that the appellant No.3/petitioner No.3 has no right to sell the subject property till disposal of the suit filed by her in O.S.No.342 of 2018, and such a finding on the civil right, in exercise of Writ jurisdiction is unwarranted. 12. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge misconstrued the factual aspects, which are explained in detail with documentary proof as to the absolute right and title. 13. 12. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge misconstrued the factual aspects, which are explained in detail with documentary proof as to the absolute right and title. 13. Learned Senior Counsel further vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that when proper and necessary parties were made in the civil suit in respect of the cause espoused in the civil suit evident from the pleadings of the plaint and stated that Civil Court’s jurisdiction was invoked by appellant No.3 to remove the cloud on the valuable rights of appellant No.3, it can never mean to say in law that appellant No.3 should wait for the outcome of the civil suit to enable or to deal with her own property, and such basic facts are necessary for consideration. 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants further contended that the purchaser of the property of appellant No.3 is neither necessary nor proper party to the Writ Petition as the cause espoused in the Writ Petition is not adversarial as between appellant No.3 and the fraudsters including the last purchaser P.Maladri in the light of the indisputable facts borne out of the records where the Police have laid charge sheet against the fraudsters and the said P.Maladri has entered into compromise with the vendor fraudsters and received the sale consideration and when a cheque was dishonoured, instituted a complaint under the provisions of the Negotiable Instructions Act. 15. In support of this contentions that the registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant and he has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision in K.GopiVs. Sub-Registrar and others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740. 16. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside by allowing the Writ Petition directing respondent No.4 to register the 3 sale deeds as prayed for. 17. Sub-Registrar and others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740. 16. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside by allowing the Writ Petition directing respondent No.4 to register the 3 sale deeds as prayed for. 17. On the other hand, Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondents contended that the documents presented by the appellants were kept for scrutiny and assigned document numbers, and upon examination of the said documents, it was found that appellant No.3 has already sold the subject property to one Ch.Srinu vide Doc.No.845/2017, who in turn sold the subject property to one K.Ram Gopal and Ch.Srinivas Babji vide loc.Nos.1535/2017 and 1579/2017 respectively, and the said persons sold the subject property to P.Maladri vide Doc.Nos.2648/2017 and 3083/2017, thereby the subject property is involved in double and triple registrations. Therefore, the appellants were informed of their right to prefer appeal before the District Registrar as per Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 and without exhausting such right, the appellants have filed the Writ Petition. 18. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration further contended that the order passed by respondent No.4 is well within his rights to refuse registration of the sale deeds and there are no merits in the Appeal. 19. In support of his contentions, learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others , 2012(1) ALD 90 , wherein it was held that it is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the concerned parties. 20. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions raised, and perused the record. 21. 20. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions raised, and perused the record. 21. The record speaks that P.Maladri filed O.S.No.427 of 2017 against the vendor of appellant Nos.1 and 2 i.e. appellant No.3 and three other fraudsters seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the schedule property, wherein the learned Civil Court held that a cloud persist over the plaintiff’s (P.Maladri) title and he has failed to establish his possession and enjoyment over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff is to file a comprehensive suit seeking declaration, possession and injunction. 22. The learned Civil Court further held that the appellant No.3 herein filed certified copies of rectification deeds vide Doc.Nos.2039/2017 and 2648/2017. Thereby, learned Civil Court observed that the plaintiff (P.Maladri) approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. The learned Civil Court finally held that “I am firmly of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties as on the date of filing of the suit. Consequently, he is not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction as prayed for. Notably, the plaintiff himself admitting during cross-examination that he did not file any document to demonstrate his possession of the suit schedule properties, in the absence of such proof, the issue of interference by the defendants does not arise”. Therefore, learned Civil Court dismissed the suit filed by P.Maladri. 23. The appellant No.3 instituted suit O.S.No.342 of 2018 against the fraudsters as well as P.Maladri (Plaintiff in O.S.No.427 of 2017) seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 03.02.2017 bearing Doc.No.845/2017, wherein the said P.Maladri filed written statement along with certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.940 of 2008 filed against the fraudsters. 24. It is not in dispute that criminal proceedings were initiated on the complaint of appellant No.3 alleging fabrication of documents and fraudulent transactions in respect of the schedule property, and that after investigation a charge sheet came to be filed against the alleged fraudsters. However, it is well settled that criminal proceedings and civil rights operate in distinct spheres. 24. It is not in dispute that criminal proceedings were initiated on the complaint of appellant No.3 alleging fabrication of documents and fraudulent transactions in respect of the schedule property, and that after investigation a charge sheet came to be filed against the alleged fraudsters. However, it is well settled that criminal proceedings and civil rights operate in distinct spheres. The filing of a charge sheet can, at best, indicate the existence of a prima facie case for the purpose of criminal prosecution, but it neither determines nor extinguishes civil rights or title to immovable property, which can be adjudicated only by a competent Civil Court. 25. Equally settled is the legal position that the mere pendency of a civil suit, in the absence of any interim order of injunction or statutory prohibition restraining alienation, does not create a bar either on the execution or on the registration of a document. In the present case, no injunction or prohibitory order has been placed on record restraining appellant No.3 from dealing with the schedule property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that appellant No.3 has no right to alienate the property till the disposal of O.S.No.342 of 2018 amounts to an adjudication of civil rights, which is impermissible in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 26. The reliance placed by the learned Government Pleader on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi (Supra) is misconceived. The said decision deals with the registration of unilateral deeds of cancellation and the circumstances under which such cancellation deeds may be registered. The issue in the present case is not the registration of a cancellation deed, but the refusal to register fresh sale deeds presented for registration. Hence, the ratio laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi has no application to the facts of the present case. 27. On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in K.Gopi (supra) is exactly on similar circumstances wherein the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed, which was rejected in the Writ Petition on the ground that the he has not impleaded the legal heirs, since petitioner in the said case based his title on unregistered Will. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the event of any doubt regarding title, the registering authority is empowered to return the document under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. In the said case, the petitioner was granted liberty to work out remedies under law. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered Rule 55A of the Registration Rules, which reads asunder: “6. In the said case, the petitioner was granted liberty to work out remedies under law. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered Rule 55A of the Registration Rules, which reads asunder: “6. 55A (i) The registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation; Provided that in case an encumbrance as to mortgage, orders on attachment of property, sale agreement or lease agreement exists over the property, the registering officer shall not register such document if the time limit for filing of suit is not lapsed or No Objection Certificate is not granted by the appropriate authority or raising of the attachment is not done, as the case may be; Provided further that in case the previous original deed is not available as the property being an ancestral one, the registering officer shall not register such document, unless the presentant produce any revenue record evidencing the executant's right over the subject property such as patta copy issued by Revenue Department or tax receipt; Provided also that if the previous original deed is lost, the registering officer shall register such document only on production of non-traceable Certificate issued by the Police department along with the advertisement published in the local Newspaper as to the notice of loss of the previous original deed; Provided also that production of the previous original deed shall not be necessary where the Government or a Statutory body is the executant of the document or for such class of documents as may be notified by the Inspector General of Registration, from time to time (ii) The registering officer, on being satisfied that the description of the property contained in the document presented for registration conforms with the description of the property found in the previous original deed produced by the presentant as provided under this rule, he shall inscribe the word 'verified’ on a conspicuous portion of the first page of such title deed and affix his signature with date and thereafter cause scanning of page containing such inscription as a reference document (iii) In case where revenue records are produced under this rule, the same shall be scanned as the main document and where NonTraceable Certificate and the advertisement published in the local Newspaper are submitted by the presentant, the same shall be scanned as reference documents; Provided that such verification and scanning of the previous original deed or record in the manner provided under this rule, shall not be construed to be an act of ascertaining the validity of the document presented for registration and also the same shall not absolve or deprive any person from the provisions contained in Parts XIV and XV of the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908)". Rule 55-A mandates that when a document relating to an immovable property is presented for registration before the Officer concerned, the same shall not be registered unless the presentant produces the previous original deed by which the executant acquired the right over the subject property… The Apex Court also referred to Sections 22-A and 22-B incorporated by the State of Tamil Nadu in the 1908. The said provisions states as under: “8. … 22-A Refusal to register certain documents - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any of the following documents namely:- (1) instrument relating to the transfer of immovable properties by way of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease: (i) belonging to the State Government or the local authority or Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority established under Section 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971; (ii) belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of any religious institution to which the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable; (iii) donated for Bhoodan Yagna and vested the Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board established under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958; or (iv) of Wakfs which are under the superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board established under the Wakf Act, 1995; unless a sanction in this regard issued by the competent authority as provided under the relevant Act or in the absence of any such authority, an authority so authorised by the State Page 7 of 13 Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025 Government for this purpose, is produced before the registering officer; (2) instrument relating to the transfer of ownership of lands converted as house sites without the permission for development of such land from planning authority concerned; provided that the house sites without such permission may be registered if it is shown that the same house site has been previously registered as house site. 22-B. Refusal to register forged documents and other documents prohibited by law- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register the following documents, namely:- (1) forged document; (2) document relating to transaction, which is prohibited by any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force; (3) document relating to transfer of immovable property by way of sale, gift, lease or otherwise, which is attached permanently or provisionally by a competent authority under any Central Act or State Act for the time being in force or any Court or Tribunal; (4) any other document as the State Government may, by notification, specify”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope and object of Rule 55-A, has held that the registering officer is entitled to satisfy himself as to the production of documents evidencing the manner in which the executant claims right over the subject property, and that non-production of such documents may constitute a valid ground for refusal. At the same time, the Supreme Court has unequivocally clarified that such scrutiny is limited to procedural compliance and does not vest the registering authority with any power to adjudicate upon disputed questions of title or to examine the validity of prior or subsequent conveyances. The registering officer cannot assume the role of a civil court by weighing rival claims or by deciding whether the executant ultimately possesses a valid or superior title. 28. In the present case, appellant No.3 has produced the original title deed under which she claims right over the schedule property. It is also not in dispute that she has initiated criminal proceedings alleging fabrication and fraudulent execution of subsequent documents, culminating in registration of an FIR and filing of a charge sheet, and has further approached the competent Civil Court by instituting O.S.No.342 of 2018 seeking cancellation of the disputed sale deed. Significantly, the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the subsequent purchaser, P. Maladri, in O.S.No.427 of 2017, stood dismissed, the Civil Court having found that the plaintiff failed to establish possession or entitlement to injunctive relief. 29. In such circumstances, the registering authority could not have refused registration solely on the ground of pendency of civil proceedings, more particularly when Appellant no.3 herself filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deeds. 29. In such circumstances, the registering authority could not have refused registration solely on the ground of pendency of civil proceedings, more particularly when Appellant no.3 herself filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deeds. Further, in the absence of any restraint or prohibitory order, the registering authority ought not to have refused registration of the subject sale deeds. 30. The registration of the subject sale deeds, if effected, shall not amount to be a declaration or confirmation of title, but only operate to convey such right, title or interest, if any, as appellant No.3 may ultimately be held to possess. 31. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the Appeal directing the official respondents to register the subject sale deeds. The registration is subject to the final outcome of the cancellation of sale deeds bide O.S No. 342 of 2018. 32. Subject to above observations, W.A.No.1447 of 2025 is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.