THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO: 18565 OF 2007 DATED: 14.2.2008 Between: Smt.Begum …… Petitioner And The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District at Moosapet, Hyderabad and another. … … Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.18565 of 2007 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 28.8.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent – Sub Registrar, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy District refusing to register the cancellation of Agreement of Sale -cum- General Power of Attorney dated 22.3.2002 executed in respect of lands in Sy.No.169, 170, 171, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199 part and 200 situated at Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner and 9 others became the owners of the above stated lands in an extent of Ac.22.24 guntas after demise of Mohd.Yousufuddin and Mohd.Saber. Thereafter, they entered into an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney dated 22.3.2002 in favour of Sri S.Sanjeeva Reddy and Mr.Gurram Chandrasekhar, the impleaded respondents with a condition that delivery of possession will be given in favour of the vendees. But, in fact, no possession was given at any point of time and that herself and others are still in possession of the property. Since the vendees are acting against their interests and have not paid the consideration as agreed, the petitioner and others intended to cancel the agreement and accordingly issued a legal notice dated 26.12.2006 published in the local news papers of Ranga Reddy District Edition on 27.12.2006. Thereafter the petitioner presented the Cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 23.8.2007 before 2nd respondent for registering but the same was refused by the 2nd respondent vide the impugned acknowledgement extracted hereunder. “With reference to the subject cited above, the applicant is hereby informed that there is specific order from the Court of law. Further he is informed to seek redressal in Court of law..” The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of both the official respondents. Initially the petitioner has not impleaded the persons in whose favour the GPA is executed. But at the instance of the Court, the petitioner has impleaded them. They have also filed a counter affidavit. Heard Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. In the counter affidavit the Sub-Registrar has stated that the petitioner has not presented any deed before him for cancellation of the earlier registered deed. However, in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated that terms and conditions of agreement of sale-cum- general power of attorney would show that an interest is created in the subject matter and in such circumstances unilateral cancellation of the document earlier registered cannot be undertaken and the same was informed to the parties. The case of the petitioner is that since the vendees to the document are acting against their interest, they have executed the cancellation deed which is signed by all the vendors and, therefore, the same has to be registered by the Sub-Registrar. In support of her case, the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma[1] and pleaded that the Sub- Registrar is bound to register the cancellation deed. In Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma’s case (supra), the Full Bench considered the question whether the cancellation deed should be registered without notice to the executant. The majority of the Full Bench examined various facets of the issue and held that the registering authority has no option, but to admit the deed of cancellation to registration, without reference to the parties to the document. After the judgment of the Full Bench stated supra, the State Government in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 added Rule 26(k) to the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the said Act. For the sake of convenience, Rule 26(k) is reproduced below: Rule 26 (k): i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyance on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale; Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a Government Officer competent to execute Government orders declaring the properties contained in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be Government or Assigned or Endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law. ii) Save in the manner provided for above, no cancellation deed of a previously registered deed of conveyance on sale before him shall be accepted for presentation for registration. From the above Rule, it is clear that the registering officer shall ensure at the time of presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyance on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executants and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale. In the instant case, total 11 persons have executed the Agreement of Sale in favour of respondents 3 and 4 and even as per the Cancellation Deed, only 10 persons have decided to cancel the agreement of sale and only the petitioner has approached this Court. It is specifically stated by the impleaded respondents in the counter affidavit that possession was delivered to them after execution of the documents and various developments have been taken place in the land as per the agreement. It is also stated that they have paid the entire sale consideration agreed to and the Vendors have handed over the originals of the link documents and the patta pass books to the vendees. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Power of Attorney is created under the Indian Contract Act and, therefore, it can be terminated as contemplated under the provisions of the Contract Act and the petitioner has complied with such provision by issuing a notice of cancellation. Therefore, the Cancellation Deed has to be registered by the Sub-Registrar. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Even as per Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, once the rights are accrued to parties under the Agreement, any cancellation has to be by way of civil suit and not by unilateral cancellation deed. In the instant case, the petitioner and others executed not only a General Power of Attorney but they have also entered into an agreement of sale of the lands mentioned therein and have created interest on the vendees. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law that a cancellation deed cannot be registered without the appearance of both the parties as stipulated under Rule 26(k) of the Rules, it cannot be said that the objection raised by the 2nd respondent for registering the cancellation deed is illegal and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the Sub Registrar to register the same. For the foregoing reasons, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, this order would not preclude the petitioner from availing the remedies available to her in law. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 14.2.2008 msv [1] 2006 (6) ALD 623