JUDGMENT :- 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to register the deed of cancellation of power of attorney and the deed of power of attorney presented on 06.07.2010 and pending registration in Document Nos.P201000080 and P201000081 respectively. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he and his brothers R.Gopal, R.Shankar and R.Babu and his mother R.Padma Naidu being the legal heirs of their deceased father Ramadoss Naidu decided to sell the property by appointing a power agent one A.K.Natarajan S/o. A.Kannan and one G.K.Jayakumar S/o. Kandhasamy naicker, by registered power of attorney document dated 21.05.2007 registered in document No.68 of 2007 on the file of the same respondent. 3. After the death of the petitioner's mother on 10.10.2008, since the attitude of his brothers R.Gopal and R.Shankar was different towards the petitioner and his brother R.Babu and by apprehending that the petitioner's power agents have also colluded with them and were planning to grab the property, the petitioner and his brother R.babu decided to cancel the power of attorney deed dated 21.05.2007. Thereafter, they executed a cancellation deed cancelling the power agents and the said deed was presented before the respondent for registration on 05.07.2010 but the respondent declined to even receive the same. Subsequently, along with their lawyer, on 06.07.2010, the deed of cancellation and a deed of power of attorney were presented in favour of one Mr.Sheik Amanullah. But the respondent instead of registering the documents on its presentation, has assigned document Nos.P2010000080 and P201000081, treating the same as pending documents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner also filed a protest petition on 06.07.2010 objecting as to the registering of any document pertaining to the subject property, but the same was rejected by the respondent on the ground of non-availability of such provision under the Registration Act and further omitted the fact that the same is applicable to registration of the above referred deeds presented by the petitioner on 05.07.2010, itself which the respondent has no other choice than to register the same as per the Registration Act. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the respondent is having a statutory duty to register a document when presented before him and admit the document as contemplated under Section 35 of the Indian Registration Act . The respondent is also duty bound to register the document as directed in Sections 58 to 61 and complete the registration. 6. In reply the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would also agree with the settled proposition of law contemplated under Section 35 of the Indian Registration Act and would further submit that the respondent ought to have registered the documents presented by the parties for registration. 7. This Court by taking into consideration the submissions made on either side, is of the considered opinion that when the petitioner is apprehending untoward incidents, at the hands of the power agents in respect of the property belonging to them, there is nothing wrong in cancelling the deed of power of attorney, cancelling the power agents. Accordingly this Court directs the respondent to register the deed of cancellation of power of attorney and the deed of power of attorney presented by the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this observation the writ petition is allowed.