IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23438 of 2008 Between: Smt. Godela Indira … Petitioner AND The Sub-Registrar, Jangaon, Jangaon Town & Mandal, Warangal District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Venkateswar Varanasi Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23438 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not entertaining the application for registration of deed dated 06.09.2008 for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 23.08.2007 in respect of the properties admeasuring Ac.0.25 guntas, Ac.0.11 guntas, Ac.0.35 ½ guntas, Ac.0.26 guntas and Ac.0.09 guntas comprised in Sy.Nos.270, 271, 272, 273 and 269 respectively of Pembarthy Revenue Village of Jangaon Revenue Mandal, Warangal District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Venkateswar Varanasi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.1 and perused the record. The petitioner in her aﬃdavit averred that she is the owner and possessor of the abovementioned agricultural lands, that her husband’s elder brother’s son Godela Vamsheedhar Reddy, who was doing real estate business, approached her to sell her land agreeing to act as mediator for transaction, that he took her signatures on the original documents and did not pay any amount to her and that he executed a forged document and registered the same with the help of respondent No.1 without the petitioner’s presence at the time of registration and obtaining her signatures and thumb impression in the concerned records of registration oﬃce and also on sale deed dated 23.08.2007. It is her further case that after she noticed the same, she got a legal notice issued on 04.06.2008 to the said Vamsheedar Reddy, N. Mahender Reddy and respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that she executed the purported deed to cancel the sale deed. The grievance of the petitioner is that when she presented the said cancellation deed before respondent No.1, he has not received the same. The petitioner relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari vs. Ananthula Sayamma[1] in support of her plea that respondent No.1 is bound to register the cancellation deed. I have carefully considered the Full Bench judgment referred to above. It is required to be noted that after the said judgment was rendered, Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 was amended by introducing clause (k), which inter alia requires that the registering oﬃcer shall ensure at the time of presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances 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 view of this provision, the judgment of the Full Bench does not come to the aid of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is unable to secure the presence of other parties to the previous sale deed. In view of the mandatory requirement of presence of all the parties to the document before the registering authority, the action of respondent No.1 in not registering the document to cancel the previous sale deed is in conformity with the legislative intent as reﬂected from the said provision and therefore I do not find any illegality in the said action. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the previous sale deed was fabricated, the other parties are not cooperating with the petitioner in getting the same cancelled. I am afraid, respondent No.1 cannot go into the disputed questions raised by the petitioner as to whether the earlier sale deed was registered by fabricating the document and playing fraud on the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in a competent civil Court for invalidation of the previous sale deed and it is only thereafter that respondent No.1 is obliged to register the proposed document presented by the petitioner for registration. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.30536 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 31.10.2008 ES [1] 2006 (6) ALT 523 (F.B.)