HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25321 of 2009 Date 01.11.2010 Between: Taj Fatima and another. ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Sub-Registrar-I, R.O.(OB), Hyderabad (South)-Banjara Hills Noo.8-3-165/1/A,1st Floor Deccan Chambers, Erragadda, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C.Ravindranath for Smt C.Jayasree Sarathy Counsel for Respondent :AGP for Revenue HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25321 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to cancel the registered sale deed dated 16.04.1982 executed by late Smt Qamer Unnisa Begum in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of house bearing No.10-2-508 (old) which corresponds to new No.10-2-507/1 at Asif Nagar, Hyderabad. I have heard Sri C.Ravindranath, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent No.1 and Sri M.Govind, learned Counsel representing respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.436 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners for declaration of her title in respect of the above mentioned property. The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.2. However, A.S.No.116 of 1993 filed by the petitioners was allowed by the learned Additional Chief Judge- cum-Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the decree of the trial Court was reversed. S.A.No.672 of 1995 filed by respondent No.2 was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 25.04.2007. The Special Leave Petition filed by respondent No.2 was rejected by the Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that the lower appellate Court has given the finding that the sale deed dated 16.04.1982, through which respondent No.2 has claimed her source of title, was held to be sham and nominal and that it was in the nature of benami transaction. The petitioners have approached respondent No.1 with a request to cancel registration of such sale deed as a consequence of the judgments of the Civil Court as confirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court. The said request having not been acceded to by respondent No.1, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that Rule 26(k) of the A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Rules’) prohibits acceptance of sale deeds cancelling previous sale deeds unless the cancellation deeds are executed bilaterally by both the vendor and vendee and that as the parties to the said document having not executed such cancellation deed, the same cannot be cancelled. It is, however, stated that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court in the Writ Petition, no document being presented by respondent No.2 is registered. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue invited my attention to Rule 118(a) of the Rules which inter alia envisages that on receipt of a communication from a Revenue Officer or from a Court which intimates revocation, cancellation, rectification or modification of a document previously registered, a note shall be entered at the foot of the entry on the communication as provided by the said rule. As rightly pleaded by respondent No.1, it is not the case of the petitioners that the parties to the document in question have executed an order of revocation. Therefore, the petitioners are only entitled to approach the Civil Court, which passed decree to send appropriate communication to respondent No.1, for making necessary entry in the register regarding the invalidity of the document in question. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP.Nos. 32983 of 2009 and 10583 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01.11.2010 usd