HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5800 OF 2008 DATE: JULY 7, 2011 Between: P.Sadananda Murthy, S/o.late P.Rama Swamy, Aged about 53 years, R/o.D.No.3/4-153, Kishanpura, Hanamkonda town and Mandal, Warangal District … Petitioner And The District Registrar, Anantapur, Anantapur District and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondent in canceling the Registered Deed Document dated 23.10.2007 earlier registered Agreement of Sale-Cum-General Power of Attorney with possession dated 09.10.2007, without following any procedure contemplated under Registration Act, and without following any procedure under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the cancellation of the Registered Deed Document dated 23.10.2007 by the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The 3rd respondent herein was the owner and possessor of house property admeasuring Ac.0.15 cents in T.S.No.2031-4, situated in Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent offered to sell the said property to him and entered into an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession and also executed a deed to that effect on 09.10.2007, by receiving a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs. The petitioner questions the action of the 2nd respondent in accepting registration of deed of cancellation dated 23.10.2007 executed by the 3rd respondent. The said cancellation deed is executed by the 3rd respondent alleging that the document dated 09.10.2007 was got executed by the petitioner by forging his signatures and by impersonation. It is the case of the petitioner that a power of attorney coupled with an agreement of sale cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent is not competent to register such document. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the case of the petitioner, relied on a judgment dated 13.07.2010 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2007. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that as much as document dated 09.10.2007 was not executed by the 3rd respondent, cancellation deed dated 23.10.2007 was executed by him. It is alleged that the document dated 09.10.2007 was got executed by the petitioner by forging the signatures of the 3rd respondent and by impersonation; as such the same is not a valid document; in that view of the matter cancellation deed dated 23.10.2007 was registered by the 2nd respondent. I have perused a copy of the cancellation deed dated 23.10.2007, which is signed only by the 3rd respondent. In similar circumstances, when the document executed by both the parties is cancelled unilaterally by executing a cancellation deed, while relying on Rule 26(i) (k) of the Rules framed under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Honourable Supreme Court, in the judgment referred above, held that only when the sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court, the registering authority can register the cancellation deed; that too, after notice to the parties concerned. It is further held that if a deed is registered without notice to the party or without any declaration by a competent Court, both the deed as well as registration thereof would be wholly void, non est and meaningless transactions. The ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment referred above squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. Thus, in this case, it is to be held that the cancellation deed dated 09.10.2007 executed by the 3rd respondent, which is registered by the 2nd respondent, is illegal and such document is non est in law. At the same time, it is to be clarified that, as much as it is the case of the 3rd respondent that the document dated 09.10.2007 was got executed by the petitioner by forging his signatures and by impersonation, if any complaint is lodged by the 3rd respondent in this regard, it is to be investigated independently. It is also open to the 3rd respondent to obtain a declaration from the competent Court of law if such document is obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud and by impersonation. Subject to the above clarification and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 7, 2011 MRR