ORDER : N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in registering the sale deeds i.e., (1) C.S.No.2999 of 2021, P.No.224 of 2021, PN dated 27-12- 2021 registered as document No.609 of 2023 registered on 27.12.2021 (2) C.S.No.3000 of 2021, P.No.225 of 2021, PN dated 28-12-2021 registered as Document No.610 of 2023 on 27.12.2021, (3)C.S.No.3001 of 2021, P.No.226 of 2021, PN dated 28-12-2021 registered as document No.611 of 2023 on 27.12.2021 in respect of properties i.e., seven (7) Shops on Ground Floor bearing M.Nos.22-7-294/19, 22-7-294/20, 22-7-294/21, 22-7- 294/22, 22-7-294/23, 22-7-294/24, 22-7-294/25, three (3) shops on First Floor bearing M.Nos.22-7-294/26 and 22-7-294/27 and remaining first floor Residential portion bearing M.No.22-7-294/28 and entire Second floor residential bearing M.No.22-7-294/29 (On plot No.A, in old premises No.22-7-253 to 264, totally admeasuring 250 Sq. yards with total built up area of 6750 Sq. Feet, (i.e., 2250 Sq. Feet each floor), situated at Inside Diwan Devdi, Hyderabad, Telangana (hereinafter referred as ‘the subject properties’) during the subsistence of restraining/ prohibitory Orders passed in I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S.No.599 of 2019 on the file of XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. During pendency of the present Writ Petition, the 1 st petitioner died and vide order dated 10.12.2014 the LR’s i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were brought on record. 3 . Facts in brief as stated in the Writ Petition are as follows: Petitioner submits that he acquired seven (7) Shops on Ground Floor, three (3) shops on First Floor and remaining first floor Residential portion and entire Second floor residential (the subject properties - on plot No.A, in old premises No.22-7-253 to 264, totally admeasuring 250 Sq. yards with total built up area of 6750 Sq. Feet, (i.e., 2250 Sq. Feet each floor), by way of Registered Gift Deed vide Document No.145 of 2008 dated 28-01-2008 registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad. 4. Petitioners further case is that the said Gift Deed bearing Document No.145 of 2008 was cancelled unilaterally vide Cancellation of Gift Deed bearing document No.1775 of 2012, dated 12-12-2012 and Gift Deeds in favour of one Mr.Abdul Raheem and Ms.Zubeda Bai got executed vide Document Nos.1780 and 1781 of 2012 and 1013 of 2013 in respect of the subject properties. The petitioner filed W.P.No.12962 of 2014 and this Court by an order dated 24.04.2014 restrained the Respondents from alienating the properties. The petitioner filed W.P.No.12962 of 2014 and this Court by an order dated 24.04.2014 restrained the Respondents from alienating the properties. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a suit viz., O.S.No.599 of 2019 for declaration of title and consequentially holding the cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed dated 12.12.2012, registered as document No.1775 of 2012, and the gift settlement deeds dated 21.12.2012 and 30.03.2013, registered as document Nos.1780 of 2012, 1781 of 2012 and 1011 of 2013, as null and void, in-operative and not binding on petitioner / plaintiff and perpetual injunction not to interfere with the possession and to restrain the unofficial Respondents from alienating the property. The said suit is pending on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the said suit, petitioner filed I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S.No.599 of 2019 for grant of interim injunction and the trial Court granted status quo orders restraining the respondents from alienating/ transferring/ creating charge in respect of the subject properties until further orders on 16.11.2021. 5 . It is further submitted that a copy of the order dated 24.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.12962 of 2014 was served to the Respondent No.3. Accordingly, aforementioned property was included in the prohibition properties list and the orders of this Court were subsisting until 08-12-2022. Thereafter the said Writ Petition was closed directing the Petitioner to seek the appropriate relief in the pending comprehensive Suit i.e., OS.No.599 of 2019. 6 . It is further submitted that the restraining orders of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S. No 599 of 2019 were served on 06-12-2022, the Sub- Registrar, Charminar had issued a reply Notice on 16-12- 2022 seeking clarification with regard to extension of orders beyond 13-08-2019. Thereafter the petitioner furnished a certified copy of the order wherein the orders were extended up to and until further orders on 16-11- 2021. Thereafter the petitioner furnished a certified copy of the order wherein the orders were extended up to and until further orders on 16-11- 2021. It is their further case that though the properties were listed in Prohibited list of properties maintained by the Registration department and in spite of the Orders from this Court, the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, executed registration in respect of the subject properties on 27.12.2021 by allotting the following Pending Registry Vide Book-I: (1) C.S. No. 2999 of 2021, P. No. 224 of 2021, (2) C.S. No. 3000 of 2021, P. No. 225 of 2021, (3) C.S. No. 3001 of 2021, P. No. 226 of 2021, in spite of fully being well aware that there is a prohibition order subsisting on the subject property from this Court had allotted the Pending Document for more than a period of 14 months. Thereafter the Petitioner gave a representation on 06-12-2022 intimating the Interim Orders passed by the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thereafter the Sub- Registrar, Charimnar issued a notice to the Petitioner and to his counsel requesting to update whether the Orders passed in I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S. No 599 of 2019 are subsisting as on 06-12-2022. 7 . It is further submitted that by serving certified copy of aforesaid interim order, the Petitioner requested the Respondent No.4 to cancel the pending registration executed by Mr.Abdul Raheem and Ms.Zubeda Bai pending disposal of the Suit. However, the Respondent No.4 informed the Petitioner that the aforementioned property was added in prohibition list and neither any registration will be entertained by the Sub-Registrar Charminar nor the pending document will be released till specific orders are received from the Hon'ble Court in OS.No.599 of 2019. 8 . It is further submitted that on 13.04.2023, on verifying the electricity bill, the petitioner came to know that his name was replaced by one Mr.Mohammed Nawaz Khan. Thereafter the Petitioner enquired about the change of name in the electricity department wherein the officials of the department informed that the name in the Electricity bill in respect of subject property was changed on the basis of Registered Sale Deed provided by the said Mr.Mohammed Nawaz Khan. Thereafter the Petitioner enquired about the change of name in the electricity department wherein the officials of the department informed that the name in the Electricity bill in respect of subject property was changed on the basis of Registered Sale Deed provided by the said Mr.Mohammed Nawaz Khan. Thereafter the Petitioner enquired through the official website of registration department wherein he came to know that the Pending Registry Vide following Book-I : “(1) C.S. No.2999 of 2021, P. No. 224 of 2021, dated 27-12-2021 was registered vide document No.609 of 2023 dated 27.12.2022. (2) C.S. No. 3000 of 2021, P. No. 225 of 2021, PN dated 28-12-2021 was registered as document No.610 of 2023 on 27.12.2023. (3) C.S. No. 3001 of 2021, P. No. 226 of 2021, PN dated 28-12-2021 was registered as document No.611 of 2023 on 27.12.2023. 9 . The main grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of having knowledge about the pendency of the Suit and Orders passed in I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S. No 599 of 2019 pending on the file of XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, respondent No.3 had violated the said order which is a clear dereliction of his duties though having knowledge regarding the subject property which is being subjudice since 2014 and by notice dated 06.12.2022 and 14.12.2022 wherein, the Petitioner served the Restraining Orders of the Hon’ble Court which is in subsistence. 10 . It is further submitted that the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad / Respondent No. 4 inspite of direct orders of the trial Court had sought clarification from the Government Pleader of City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein it was opined by way of legal opinion that registering and releasing documents would not amount to violation of Court orders as the alienation of the property was already completed on 27-12-2021. It is further submitted that the Government Pleader and Sub- Registrar, Charminar in active collusion with the unofficial respondents have registered the property during the pendency and subsistence of the Interim Orders of the Hon'ble Court as such the same is illegal and liable to be revoked and cancelled. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 11 . It is further submitted that the Government Pleader and Sub- Registrar, Charminar in active collusion with the unofficial respondents have registered the property during the pendency and subsistence of the Interim Orders of the Hon'ble Court as such the same is illegal and liable to be revoked and cancelled. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 11 . A counter has been filed by the incharge Sub- Registrar, SRO Charminar, Hyderabad – respondent No.3, wherein it is submitted that it was not mentioned whether the petitioner or their representative provided a copy of the Status Quo order to Respondent No.3, preventing them from refusing registration of documents related to the disputed property, therefore, the 3 rd Respondent could not stop registration of documents over the subject property in dispute unless information of the interim orders is provided by the parties to the suit. 12 . It is further submitted that the petitioner ought to have challenged the Sub-Registrar's unilateral admission and registration of the cancellation deed of the Gift Settlement deed, recorded as Document No.1775 of 2012 and the petitioner did not specifically request the Hon'ble High Court to annul the subsequent Gift Settlement deeds containing the subject property in dispute, executed by Ms.Hoora Bai and got registered by her as Documents No.1780 and 1781 of 2012, and 1011 of 2013 in the years 2012 and 2013 and the subsequent transactions occurred well before the filing of the writ petition. 13 . It is further submitted that in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.16243 of 2014 in WP.No.12962 of 2014 issuing directions to maintain the status quo, the said orders were duly recorded in the prohibition register of the Office of Respondent No.3 and Respondents No.7 and 8 were not included as parties in W.P.No.12692 of 2014 until 2022. Consequently, the actions of Respondents No.7 and 8 with respect to the property in question were not restrained by Respondent No.3 during the said period. It is further submitted that the petitioner had neither informed about any prohibitory orders, nor served the copy of the Order. The reason for the pendency of the said documents was based on the High Court's order dated 24.04.2014, directing restraining the alienation of the property. However, the property has already been alienated by Mrs.Hoora Bai through Settlement deeds in the year 2012 and 2013. The reason for the pendency of the said documents was based on the High Court's order dated 24.04.2014, directing restraining the alienation of the property. However, the property has already been alienated by Mrs.Hoora Bai through Settlement deeds in the year 2012 and 2013. Since Respondents No.7 and 8 were not made parties to the Writ Petition until 2022, the documents executed by them were admitted for execution and were kept Pending and not admitted for registration in order to comply with the orders of this Court on 24.04.2014 in W.P.No.12692 of 2014. 14 . It is further submitted that the petitioner though informed regarding the interim order on 16.11.2021, however, no copies of the orders were received by respondent No.3 at that time. Counsel for the Defendants in the O.S. and unofficial respondent, claimed that the status quo orders were extended only until 13.08.2019 and later memos of extension were not filed. It is further submitted that the status quo orders were not received and W.P.No.12962 of 2014 was dismissed on 08.12.2022 and later received the extension orders on 14.12.2022, but they were not absolute orders prohibiting property alienation, as claimed by the petitioner. 15 . It is further submitted that in view of the rival contentions, respondent No.3 sought legal advice and referred the matter to the Government Pleader, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who opined that releasing the pending documents would not violate the status quo orders, as the property's alienation had already occurred in the year 2021. It is further submitted that based on the legal opinion, respondent No.3 admitted the pending documents for registration and were released. 16. A counter has been filed by respondent No.8 on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 13. While denying the averments in the writ petition would submit that the prayer sought by the petitioner can only be granted under specific relief Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a time barred suit vide O.S.No.599 of 2019, and obtained interim order in the said suit and the Court granted status quo but the respondents were not aware of the interim orders passed by the Court. As such the petitioner cannot seek invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for cancellation of registered document and the relief can be sought only before a competent Civil Court. 17 . As such the petitioner cannot seek invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for cancellation of registered document and the relief can be sought only before a competent Civil Court. 17 . In the brief background of the case as narrated in the counter, it is submitted that originally one Mr.Moosa Bai, S/o Abba Esa, who was popularly known as Mr.Moosa Seit got married to one Ms.Hoora Bai and was residing at Purani Haveli House. The said Mr.Moosa Bai and Ms.Hoora Bai were running a clothes business under the name and style of "Lucky Traders" on the subject property on lease basis. Thereafter they constructed a building out of the income from the said business and also purchased the disputed property on 03.07.1972 vide Registered Document No.16 of 1973. Later when they had no children have adopted the Petitioner, Respondent Nos.6 and 7 and another daughter by the name Ms.Zareena and were living together. 18 . On 06.02.2002 when the said Moosa Bai died petitioner hatched a plan to acquire the subject property fraudulently on the pretext that he would take Hoora Bai to Haj Pilgrimage/ Umrah Pilgrimage and took the signatures of Hoora Bai on Blank Papers and got the alleged Gift Deed bearing Document No.145/2008 registered in his name. Thereafter on coming to know about the fraud played by the Petitioner, the said Hoora Bai approached the Registration office and got the alleged Gift Deed bearing Document No.145/2008 cancelled vide Document No.1775/2012 and gifted the disputed property to the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 vide 3 registered Gift Deeds bearing Document Nos.1780 and 1781 of 2012 and 1011 of 2013. 19 . Thereafter the Petitioner filed a case before this Court vide Writ Petition No.12962 of 2014 and said Hoora Bai filed a detailed counter and during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.599 of 2019 before the Hon'ble XXVI Additional Chief Judge seeking a relief of declaration of title and the same was pending. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition, and directed the Petitioner to pursue remedies in the pending suit in O.S.No.599 of 2019 and closed all the miscellaneous Petitions pending in the Writ Petition. 20 . The Petitioner got status quo order and the same was extended until further orders. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition, and directed the Petitioner to pursue remedies in the pending suit in O.S.No.599 of 2019 and closed all the miscellaneous Petitions pending in the Writ Petition. 20 . The Petitioner got status quo order and the same was extended until further orders. Respondents Nos.6 and 7 were not aware of the Status Quo order passed by the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court and the Sale Deeds were executed in favour of Respondent No.13. Thereafter, the same was kept pending by giving pending numbers before the registration officer in view of the status quo order and pending suit on the file of XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. It is further submitted that on the basis of the Legal opinion given by the Respondent No.5 had executed the Sale Deeds in favour of Respondent No.13. Eventually, it is prayed that the present Writ is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 21 . A counter has been filed on behalf of respondent No.13. While denying the submissions made by the petitioners, it is submitted that the Sub-Registrar has strictly complied with the mandate of law and he has to accept the documents tendered for registration which has to be exercised save in the circumstances precluding him to do so and that there was no interim order granted by the Civil Court restraining the Registrar from registering the document as such the writ petitioner has no cause of action against the un-official respondents to call for their action and the writ petition is barred by principles of resjudicata. It is further submitted that respondent No.13 has substantial interest on the subject properties and that respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the writ petition has sold the immovable property to respondent No.13 under three separate sale deeds i.e., Document Nos.609, 610 and 611 of 2023 dated 27.12.2021 now which are sought to be cancelled in the present writ petition. It is further submitted that an application in I.A.No.949 of 2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. in O.S.No.599 of 2019 was filed which is pending before the Civil Court and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. SUBMISSIONS: 22 . It is further submitted that an application in I.A.No.949 of 2023 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. in O.S.No.599 of 2019 was filed which is pending before the Civil Court and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. SUBMISSIONS: 22 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed a Suit for declaration of title along with other reliefs and filed I.A.No.618 of 2019 in O.S.No.599 of 2019 for grant of Injunction against the alienation of schedule properties. The trial Court has granted Status Quo orders which were extended from time to time and on 16.11.2021, the interim orders were extended until further orders. The Petitioner No.1 vide Notice dated 06.12.2022, intimated Respondent No.3 with regard to the Status Quo Orders restraining any kind of transaction in respect of schedule properties. The Sub Registration Office (SRO), Charminar had issued a reply Notice seeking clarification regarding extension of orders and the Petitioner No.1 again served the Certified copy of orders which were extended until further orders on 16-11-2022, and the said order was received by the SRO under acknowledgement and the same has been admitted by Respondent No.3. 23 . Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that despite being served with the orders, Respondent No.3 registered the sale deeds in violation of Standing Order No.219 issued by IG Stamps and Registration, which mandates refusal of registration in cases of judicial prohibition, thereby respondent No.3 violated the orders of the court. 24 . Learned counsel further submits that the illegal registrations have caused significant harm to the Petitioners by depriving them of their rightful ownership over the disputed property and in spite of availability of efficacious alternate remedy, the writ is maintainable. In support of his submissions placed reliance in case of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Singh v. Khacheru And Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 9 (Dated 22-01-2025) and draws attention to paragraph No.14 of the said order reads as follows: “27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. [15] Thus, it would be true to say that the existence of the statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ.” Further reliance was placed on the following judgments: “i. ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. , (2004) 3 SCC 553 : Writ jurisdiction can be invoked to enforce fundamental and legal rights, even if alternative remedies exist. ii. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks , (1998) 8 SCC 1 : Alternative remedies do not bar writ jurisdiction, especially in cases of jurisdictional errors or violation of natural justice. iii. Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2021) 6 SCC 771 : High Courts have plenary power to intervene when statutory authorities act beyond their jurisdiction or infringe constitutional rights.” 25 . Learned counsel further submits that the Courts have inherent powers to nullify actions that defy judicial orders and undermine the sanctity of the judicial process. In support of his contention placed reliance on the following judgments: “a) Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. , (1996) 4 SCC 622 : Any act done in violation of court orders is null and void, and the court must restore parties to their original positions. b) Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku, (1994) 2 SCC 266 : Acts in violation of injunction orders are illegal, and courts must intervene to reverse such actions. c) Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah , AIR 1975 Mad 270 : Courts have inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to nullify actions that violate their orders. d) M/S Asian Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana , 2024 LawSuit(TS) 326: Actions taken during the subsistence of a status quo order are illegal and unenforceable. e) BalwantbhaiSomabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor , AIR 2023 SC 4390 : Contumacious transactions must be reversed to prevent wrongdoers from gaining an advantage.” 26 . d) M/S Asian Tubes Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana , 2024 LawSuit(TS) 326: Actions taken during the subsistence of a status quo order are illegal and unenforceable. e) BalwantbhaiSomabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor , AIR 2023 SC 4390 : Contumacious transactions must be reversed to prevent wrongdoers from gaining an advantage.” 26 . Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.3 has admitted in the counter-affidavit that their office received the interim orders on 06-12-2022 which were made absolute on 16.11.2021 and the extension orders on 14-12-2022. However, despite this acknowledgment, the Respondents proceeded with the registration of sale deeds and the said action is total violation of Standing Order No.219 which explicitly mandates Sub-Registrar to refuse registration when judicial prohibitions are in force. In support of his contention placed reliance on the following judgments: “i) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana , (2012) 1 SCC 656 : Sub-Registrars must adhere to judicial orders, and violations render registrations void. ii) K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi , (1998) 3 SCC 573 : Actions that undermine judicial authority are void ab initio. iii) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 : Fraudulent actions circumventing judicial orders are non-est in law.” 27 . Learned counsel further submits that the Court has inherent power to ensure justice and in support of his contention he placed reliance on the following judgments: “i) Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal , (2002) 1 SCC 100 : Courts have wide-ranging powers to ensure justice and undo acts that violate judicial orders. ii) T. Lakshmikantha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , AIR 1979 AP 281: The Sub-Registrar's failure to comply with statutory and judicial mandates warrants judicial intervention.” 28 . Learned senior counsel Sri A. Venkatesh appearing for the respondent Nos.6 to 13 would submit that admittedly the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.599 of 2019 seeking the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner for the subject property and for permanent injunction and sought for an interim order and the civil court has granted an interim order of status quo. If the grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that in violation of that Status Quo order and thereby, the impugned sale deed is executed, the remedy lies in the pending civil suit to seek appropriate relief and for that purpose he cannot approach the Writ Court. If the grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that in violation of that Status Quo order and thereby, the impugned sale deed is executed, the remedy lies in the pending civil suit to seek appropriate relief and for that purpose he cannot approach the Writ Court. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the registration department is not a party to the said suit and the Registering Officer under the Registration Act, 1908, is not competent to examine whether the executants of a document has any right, title or interest over the property which is the subject matter of the document presented for registration, and that SRO is obliged to strictly comply with the provisions of the Act. The power of the Sub Registrar to accept the documents tendered for registration has to be exercised save in the circumstances precluding him to do so. However, no interim order is granted by the civil court, restraining the registrar from registering the document. 29 . It is further submitted that this Court in WP No.12962 of 2014 dated 08.12.2022 considered the same issue and directed as follows: "5... As the petitioner has already sought for a relief of declaration of tile and cancellation of various registered documents by filing the said suit, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies in the pending suit in O.S. No. 599 of 2019 on the file of Court of XXV Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad." 30 . Learned senior counsel further submitted that the aforesaid order attained finality and the present WP is again filed impugning the act of the official respondents in registering the document on the pretext that there are interim orders pending 8.12.2022. But, there is a specific direction of this Court in WP 12962 of 2014 that the petitioner shall take recourse to OS.No.599 of 2019 only and not before this Hon'ble Court and submit that the present Writ Petition is therefore barred by principles of res judicata. 31 . Learned senior counsel would further submit that Respondents 6 and 7 sold the immovable property to respondent No.13 under three separate registered sale deeds dated 27.12.2021 (Document Nos.609, 610 and 611 of 2023) and the said documents are sought to be cancelled in the present Writ petition. 31 . Learned senior counsel would further submit that Respondents 6 and 7 sold the immovable property to respondent No.13 under three separate registered sale deeds dated 27.12.2021 (Document Nos.609, 610 and 611 of 2023) and the said documents are sought to be cancelled in the present Writ petition. It is further submitted that certain facts are suppressed by the petitioner that the original owner of the property is Sri Moosa Bhai and after his death on 06.02.2002, his sole heir/widow Mrs.Hoora Bhai became the absolute owner of the property and on the death of said Hoora Bhai intestate on 20.07.2018, the writ petitioner is claiming to be 'adoptive son' of Hoora Bhai exerted undue influence on her taking advantage of her old age and obtained a gift cum settlement deed dated 28.01.2008 Document No.145 of 2008 which was cancelled by the said Hoora Bhai on 12.12.2012 vide Document No.1775 of 2012. Thereafter the said Hoora Bhai had executed three (3) Gift cum settlement deeds in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 on 21.12.2012 and 30.03.2013 vide Documents Nos.1780 and 1781 of 2012 and document No.1011 of 2013. By virtue of the same, the respondents 6 and 7 have become absolute owners of the property and in turn they sold the property to respondent No.13 under the three impugned sale deeds dated 27.12.2021 which are legal and valid. 32 . Heard Sri Mustafa Basith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri A. Venkatesh, learned senior counsel representing Sri K. Vijay Bhakar Reddy, Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 13. Perused the record. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 33 . Aggrieved by the unilateral cancellation of the gift deed bearing No.145 of 2008, the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.599 of 2019 for declaration of title and consequentially holding the cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed dated 12.12.2012, registered as document No.1775 of 2012, and the gift settlement deeds dated 21.12.2012 and 30.03.2013, registered as document Nos.1780 of 2012, 1781 of 2012 and 1011 of 2013, as null and void, in-operative and not binding on petitioner / plaintiff and perpetual injunction not to interfere with the possession and to restrain the unofficial Respondents from alienating the property, which is pending on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the said suit the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.619 of 2019 in O.S.No.599 of 2019 seeking ad-interim injunction against the respondents / defendants restraining them to create any third party interest by way of sale or mortgage or otherwise on the subject property. The trial Court vide order dated 16.11.2021 granted interim order until further orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners by a letter dated 06.12.2022 had informed the Sub-Registrar, Charminar regarding the said orders and requested not to entertain any kind of registration / transaction over the subject property. Thereafter counsel for the petitioner issued a contempt notice dated 13.12.2022 to the respondents including the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad questioning the allotment of pending registration numbers to the documents, which are executed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 in favour of respondent No.13. The Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad by letter dated 16.12.2022 informed that the status quo orders which were made absolute on 16.11.2021 were not received till date. Thereafter the petitioner again issued a contempt notice dated 16.05.2023 to both the District Registrar and the Sub- Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad. Thereafter on 17.06.2023 the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad informed the petitioner that the documents were released stating that the Sub-Registrar’s duty is only to check whether the subject property is a Government property but the same was not in the prohibitory properties list and accordingly, processed and released the document on 09.03.2023 after disposal of W.P.No.12962 of 2014. 34 . On perusal of the legal opinion issued by respondent No.5, which is obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005, it would reveal that the Government Pleader, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad has not specified in the said legal opinion on whose request, the said legal opinion was given. That apart in the letter dated 17.06.2023 the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad neither referred to the legal opinion sought by him nor mentioned about any legal opinion. The petitioner has also issued contempt notice dated 17.08.2023 to the Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad referring to the earlier contempt notice dated 16.05.2023 informing that the orders of the Hon’ble Court were violated with a copy to the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad – respondent No.3 and the Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration Department – respondent No.4. It is pertinent to note that in the Statement of Encumbrance of the subject property, the pending document Nos.224 and 225 of 2021 executed on 27.12.2021 are kept under scrutiny. 35 . In the counter filed by the Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad, it is submitted that in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.16243 of 2014 in WP.No.12962 of 2014 issuing directions to maintain the status quo, the said orders were duly recorded in the Prohibitory Register, and the respondent No.3 being a party to the said writ petition and being aware of the said orders, ought to have sought clarification/orders from respondent Nos.2 and 4 for deleting the subject documents from the prohibited register and based on the unsolicited legal opinion went ahead and released the document on 09.03.2023 without deletion of the said property / documents from the prohibited registration. The said action of the Sub- Registrar, Charminar is in total violation of the Court orders and against the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. 36 . The Hon'ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. S.P. Velayutham and others , (2022) 8 SCC 210 (in Civil Appeal Nos.27522753 of 2022) decided on 04.05.2022, explained the essential steps comprising registration and scope and maintainability of writ petition against the failure of the Registrar to perform their statutory duty and further clarified the proper forum for challenging the registration process. Relevant paragraphs are extracted for ready reference: “53. Actually, the registration of a document comprises of three essential steps among others. They are, (i) execution of the document, by the executant signing or affixing his left hand thumb impression; (ii) presenting the document for registration and admitting to the Registering Authority the execution of such document; and (iii) the act of registration of the document. 54. In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or without the relief of declaration that the registered document is null and void, what gets challenged, is a combination of all the aforesaid three steps in the process of execution and registration. 54. In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or without the relief of declaration that the registered document is null and void, what gets challenged, is a combination of all the aforesaid three steps in the process of execution and registration. The first of the aforesaid three steps may be challenged in a suit for declaration that the registered document is null and void, either on the ground that the executant did not have a valid title to pass on or on the ground that what was found in the document was not the signature of the executant or on the ground that the signature of the executant was obtained by fraud, coercion etc. The second step of presentation of the document and admitting the execution of the same, may also be challenged on the very same grounds hereinabove stated. Such objections to the first and second of the aforesaid three steps are substantial and they strike at the very root of creation of the document. A challenge to the very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on the execution, is congenital in nature. Therefore, such a challenge, by its very nature, has to be made only before the civil court and certainly not before the writ court. 55. The third step namely the act of registration, is something that the Registering Authority is called upon to do statutorily. While the executant of the document and the person claiming under the document (claimant) are the only actors involved in the first two steps, the Registering Officer is the actor in the third step. Apart from the third step which is wholly in the domain of the Registering Authority, he may also have a role to play in the second step when a document is presented for registration and the execution thereof is admitted. The role that is assigned to the Registrar in the second step is that of verification of the identity of the person presenting the document for registration. 56. Thus, the first two steps in the process of registration are substantial in nature, with the parties to the document playing the role of the lead actors and the Registering Authority playing a guest role in the second step. The third step is procedural in nature where the Registering Authority is the lead actor. 57. 56. Thus, the first two steps in the process of registration are substantial in nature, with the parties to the document playing the role of the lead actors and the Registering Authority playing a guest role in the second step. The third step is procedural in nature where the Registering Authority is the lead actor. 57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for declaration that a registered document is null and void, all the aforesaid three steps which comprise the entire process of execution and registration come under challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a document or the right and title of a person to execute a document and present it for registration, his remedy will only be to go to the civil court. But where a party questions only the failure of the Registering Authority to perform his statutory duties in the course of the third step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 stands completely ousted. This is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure that statutory authorities perform their duties within the bounds of law. 58. It must be noted that when a High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 finds that there was utter failure on the part of the Registering Authority to stick to the mandate of law, the Court merely cancels the act of registration, but does not declare the very execution of the document to be null and void. A declaration that a document is null and void, is exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the question whether or not the Registering Authority performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law. 59. It is well settled that if something is required by law to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and not otherwise. Examining whether the Registering Authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise, is certainly within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. 59. It is well settled that if something is required by law to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only in that manner and not otherwise. Examining whether the Registering Authority did something in the manner required by law or otherwise, is certainly within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. However, it is needless to say that the High Courts may refuse to exercise jurisdiction in cases where the violations of procedure on the part of the Registering Authority are not gross or the violations do not shock the conscience of the Court. Lack of jurisdiction is completely different from a refusal to exercise jurisdiction.” 37 . That apart on a perusal of the gift settlement deed bearing document No.145 of 2008 dated 28-01-2008, registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad, the said Hoora Bai is donor / settler had gifted the subject property in favour of the donee / petitioner No.1 and the said document has been signed by both the donor and donee. Whereas in the cancellation of gift settlement deed bearing document No.145 of 2008 dated 28-01-2008 which was cancelled by way of document bearing No.1775 of 2012, dated 12.12.2012 only the settler has signed and such unilateral execution of the document was registered at the office of Sub- Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad. The cancellation of the Gift Settlement Deed (Vide document No.145 of 2008) dated 12.12.2012 is the genesis of the entire litigation. 38 . At this juncture, it is also necessary to refer to the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi V. Government of Andhra Pradesh , (2010) 15 SCC 207 , wherein the Apex Court held that if any sale deed is required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by way of a civil suit for cancellation, but no cancellation deed can be unilaterally executed or registered. The Supreme Court, after referring to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Registration Rules, held that it is only when the earlier sale deed is cancelled by a competent court, can a cancellation deed be registered that too after notice to the concerned parties; and unilateral cancellation of the sale deed, as well as registration thereof, were wholly void, non est and meaningless transactions. 39 . 39 . In view of the fact that the petitioner has already filed a comprehensive civil suit in respect of the subject property, the earlier writ petition vide W.P.No.12962 of 2014 was dismissed directing the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the said civil court. Both the parties are claiming rights on the schedule properties and there are disputed questions of facts, the issues cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavits. 40 . For the foregoing reason and by applying the law laid down in Thota Ganga Laxmi V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. S.P. Velayutham and others , the registering authority did not perform their statutory duty as prescribed by law. It is made clear that mere registration of document does not confer any title. Eventually all the documents arising out of the said registrations which are subject matter of this writ petition are rendered invalid and the act of Sub-Registrar, Charminar, Hyderabad in registering the said documents in question is hereby cancelled. 41 . In view of pending suit i.e., O.S.No.599 of 2019 on the file of XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for a relief seeking declaration of documents as null and void is exclusively within the domain of the Civil Court, the parties may pursue their civil remedies in the said pending suit. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case to the extent of possession and title of the parties and the trial Court may decide the suit on its own merits un-influenced by the observation of this Court. 42 . With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.