THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 19024 of 2007 O r d e r: Initially, the petitioners filed the writ petition assailing the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in not registering the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of a piece of land admeasuring 1078.54 Sq. yds. in Sy. No. 441 bearing Door No. 1-1-27/2 at Banswada Town, Nizamabad district, as illegal and arbitrary. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 executed General Power of Attorney, appointing petitioner No.1 as their GPA holder on 11.02.1998 in respect of the land mentioned above. In pursuance thereof, petitioner No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, for a valid sale consideration on 29.06.2007. On the same day, when petitioner No.1 along with the necessary challan, presented the said sale deed before respondent No.3, namely the Sub-Registrar, Banswada, for registration, he was informed that since respondent No.3 was retiring, the registration will not take place, and the same was kept pending as document No. P25/07. The petitioners state that when they approached respondent No.3 on 04.07.2007 at about 10.41 A.M., they were informed that as respondent Nos. 4 to 8 revoked the GPA in favour of petitioner No.1 at about 10.37 A.M. on that day, the document cannot be registered, and accordingly returned the same. Thereafter, respondent No.3 referred the matter to respondent No.2, namely the District Registrar, Nizamabad, who in turn sought clarification from respondent No1, namely Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration. Respondent No.1, vide proceedings dated 18.08.2007, directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pass orders refusing to register the sale deed following the relevant rules, and accordingly dispose of the pending sale deed. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.3 on 13.09.2007, passed refusal orders refusing to register the sale deed stating that the GPA which authorized petitioner No.1 to present the sale deed for registration, was not in force at the time when the sale deed was presented for registration on 04.07.2007 between 2.00-3.00 P.M. At this point of time, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No. 26682 of 2007 seeking to amend the prayer in the writ petition, and the same reads as follows: To issue a writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a “Writ of Mandamus” declaring the action of the respondents in not registering sale deed dated 29.06.2007 executed in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 pending before the 3rd respondent as document No. P25/2007 and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings dated 18.08.2007 and thereby directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to register the same and the consequential action of the 3rd respondent in issuing refusal letter dated 13.09.2007 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent herein to forthwith register the document bearing No. P25/2007 and set aside the orders of the 1st respondent dated 18.08.2007 and the consequential refusal letter of 3rd respondent dated 13.09.2007 and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The above application, vide orders dated passed on 30.01.2008 was allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, a document shall operate from date of its execution and not from the date it is registered. And inasmuch as petitioner No.1 had executed the sale deed in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on 29.06.2007, he contended that it would start operating from the said date, and as such, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 by executing cancellation deed on 03.07.2007 presented for registration on 04.07.2007, could not cancelled the GPA executed by them in favour of petitioner No.1. Therefore, on the ground that the GPA executed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in favour of petitioner No.1 for dealing with the property covered thereby, was cancelled, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could not have refused to register the sale deed executed on 29.06.2007 and presented for registration on the same day, and more so when as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, the petitioners are entitled to present the sale deed for registration within four months from the date of its execution. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgments of the apex Court in Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh[1] and A. Jithendernath v. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society[2]. He thus prayed that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 refusing to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration, be set aside and they be directed to register the same. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 counter is filed. The learned Assistant Government for Revenue, reiterating the counter averments contended that since at the time when the petitioners presented the sale deed for registration, the GPA executed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in favour of petitioner No.1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the property, was cancelled, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners, and no exception can be taken thereto. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 did not file any counter. However, the learned counsel appearing on their behalf while not denying the factual aspects of the matter, adopted the above submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Since the unofficial respondents have not disputed the factual aspects of the matter, it can safely be said that there are no disputed questions of fact involved in the writ petition. However, in the light of the arguments advanced by the respective parties, the question that arises for consideration in the writ petition is whether respondent Nos.1 to 3 were justified in refusing to register the document sale deed dated 29.06.2007 presented by the petitioners for registration on 04.07.2007 on the ground that the GPA given by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in favour of petitioner No.1 for alienation of the land covered by the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration, was cancelled by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 by executing cancellation deed dated 03.07.2007 and presented the same for registration, a minutes before the petitioners presented the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 for registration. The facts, as stated by the petitioner and which remain undisputed, are respondent Nos. 4 to 8 executed a GPA in favour of petitioner No.1 on 11.02.1998 for dealing with the property in question. On the strength of the said GPA, petitioner No. 1 executed sale deed dated 29.06.2007 in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for a valid sale consideration. On the very same day, the petitioners approached respondent No.3 along with challan dated 29.06.2007 for Rs. 84,690/-, and presented the sale deed for registration, but as respondent No.3 was retiring, the registration could not take place. However, respondent No.3 kept the said document pending as document No. P25/07. The petitioners again approached respondent No.3 on 04.08.2007 at about 10.41 A.M., and this is evident from the acknowledgment given by respondent No.3 returning the document to the petitioners at 10.45 A.M. Respondent No.3 while returning the document to the petitioners, informed them that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 cancelled the GPA executed by them in favour of petitioner No.1 by executing a cancellation deed dated 03.08.2007, and presented the same at about 10.34 A.M. Thereupon, respondent No.3 referred the matter to respondent No.2, who in turn sought clarification from respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 18.08.2007, directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pass orders of rejection, and in pursuance thereof, respondent No.3, passed the impugned rejection orders dated 13.09.2007. Normally, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not venture into deciding the questions - whether the cancellation deed executed unilaterally canceling the GPA or sale deed is valid or not, and what would be the effect of the sale deeds executed by the GPA holder on the strength of the GPA, which was cancelled by execution of a cancellation deed, would direct the parties to approach the competent civil court having jurisdiction, but in the instant case, there is no dispute as to the execution of the cancellation deed, canceling the GPA, but there is dispute as to from which time, the documents executed would come into operation – whether from the date of execution or from the date of registration. To consider this issue, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as follows: Time from which registered document operates: - A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. From the above provision of law, it is clear that the document would start operating from the time of its execution and not from the time it is registered. In fact, the apex Court in Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh, stated the effect of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 in the following words: In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is well settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect from the time when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their execution would determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration. The one, which is executed earlier in time, will prevail over the other executed subsequently. The apex Court again in A. Jithendernath v. Jubilee Hills Coop. Housing Building Society, quoting the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 held that if a deed of sale is executed although not registered, the right, title and interest in respect thereof shall pass with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of execution, and stated that the said question was no longer in dispute having regard to the large number of decisions of the Privy Council as also its own decision, including Kalyanasundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar[3], Venkat Subba Srinivas Hegde v. Subba Rama Hegde[4], Radhakisan Laxminarayan Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi[5], K.J. Nathan v. S.V. Maruty Reddy[6], Nanda Ballabh Gururani v. Maqbool Begum[7] and Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar[8]. From the law, as settled by the apex Court, in its various judgments referred to above, it becomes clear that the document whether it be sale deed or GPA would come into operation from the date of its execution and not from the date of its registration. In the instant case, petitioner No.1 executed sale deed in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on 29.06.2007 on the strength of GPA given by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in his favour, while respondent Nos. 4 to 8 executed a cancellation deed canceling the GPA given by them in favour of petitioner No.1 on 03.07.2007. it is the case of the petitioners that they presented the sale deed for registration on the same day on which it was executed, but because respondent No.3 was retiring, the registration could not take place, and the said document was kept pending, and when the they approached respondent No.3 on 04.07.2007, they were informed that the sale deed cannot be registered because respondent Nos. 4 to 8 presented the cancellation deed canceling the GPA, a few minutes before they presented the sale deed for registration. Whatever be the time at which both the parties presented their respective documents, namely the sale deed and cancellation deed canceling the GPA for registration, the fact remains, under Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 the document starts operating from the time of its execution and not from the time it is registered. The sale deed having been executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on 29.06.2007 i.e. four days prior to the execution of cancellation deed i.e. on 03.07.2007, I am of the considered opinion that having regard to the settled law, that document would start operating from the date of its execution and not from the date of its registration, and the sale deed having been executed by the petitioner in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 at an earlier point of time, and having regard to the fact that under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, they had four months time to get the sale deed registered, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.3 could not have refused to register the document, namely sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration, on the ground that a few minutes before the presentation of the sale deed by the petitioners for registration, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had presented a cancellation deed, canceling the GPA executed by them in favour of petitioner No.1 for registration, and as such, the impugned action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in refusing to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration, cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 18.08.2007 passed by respondent No.1 and the consequential orders dated 13.09.2007, passed by respondent No.3, refusing to register the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 - document No. P25/2007 presented by the petitioners for registration, are set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to forthwith register the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 pending in document No. P25/2007, in accordance with law, and if it is otherwise in order. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 8th February, 2008. KSR [1] (2002) 2 SCC 611 [2] (2006) 10 SCC 96 [3] (1926-27) 54 IA 89 : AIR 1927 PC 42 [4] AIR 1928 PC 86 [5] (1961) 1 SCR 248 : AIR 1960 SC 1368 [6] (1964) 6 SCR 727 : AIR 1965 SC 340 [7] (1980) 3 SCC 346 [8] (1994) 6 SCC 591