THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2517 of 2006 Dated: 06-11-2006 Between: R. Rajeev Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue, Hyderabad, and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.2517 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent, namely, the Sub-Registrar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, in registering the cancellation deed bearing No.1595/2005 dated 17-05-2005 duly cancelling the sale deed bearing No.2659/2004 dated 27-10-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner purchased Flat No.604 in 5th floor with plinth area of 1362 sq. feet including common area in apartment block in premises bearing plot No.1 in survey Nos.145 and 146 situated at Ward No.6, Block No.3, Dwarakapuri Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, from respondents 6 and 7; the owner and developer of the property respectively. The sale deed bearing document No.2659/2004 was registered on 27-10-2004 in favour of the petitioner. He alleges that respondent No.7 in collusion with respondent Nos.6 and 8 got the said sale deed cancelled by a cancellation deed bearing document No.1595/2005 dated 17-05-2005. He contends that registration of cancellation deed by respondent No.4 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act. Two questions would arise in this writ petition. First, whether it is competent to the registering authority to accept and register a cancellation nullifying the sale deed executed earlier. Second, whether a writ petition would lie to invalidate the cancellation deed at the instance of the person who initially obtained sale deed. A Full Bench of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari and others v. Smt.Ananthula Sayamma and others[1] laid down as under. The person, who has ex facie right whether such right is registered or not can always approach the registering authority, with a request to cancel a sale deed, which was registered earlier by such registering authority by showing that subsequent registration was obtained by fraud by a person who is not entitled to transfer the property or that such transfer was registered by playing fraud on the owner or on the stranger. In the present statutory dispensation, namely Transfer of Property Act, Contract Act, Specific Relief Act and Registration Act, the Court does not see any prohibition operating on the exercise of inherent power by the registering authority to cancel the sale deed earlier registered, which is likely to cause prejudice to the true owner as well as to the entire public at large. The Full Bench also considered the question whether the writ petition is maintainable for invalidation of cancellation deed or for cancellation of an instrument, which purports to nullify the sale deed registered earlier. Referring to case law, Full Bench observed as under. That disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition is axiomatic. A copious reference to case law is not necessary. As pointed out earlier, among many; it is one of the limitations on the exercise of power of judicial review… … … Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the parties should be relegated to the civil Court to file suit either under Section 31 or under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Following the same, this writ petition is dismissed observing that the petitioner may approach the civil Court and file a suit either under Section 31 or under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It may also be noted that as and when the petitioner files the suit, the civil Court has to decide the disputed questions of fact without in any manner being influenced by the decision of the Full Bench in Yanala Malleshwari (supra) or this order. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 06th November, 2006 ghn [1] W.P.Nos.9512 of 2003 and batch, dated 24.10.2006