Judgment : The petitioners executed an agreement of sale – cum -General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 22.08.2007 in favour of Sri P. Madhusudan Reddy and three others in respect of Ac.701-00 of land in different Survey Numbers of Bahadurguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal. The document was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shamshabad, the 2nd respondent herein. Three years thereafter, the petitioners executed a deed of cancellation of agreement of sale – cum -GPA on 15.07.2010 and have presented for registration before the 2nd respondent. Through an endorsement, dated 17.07.2010, the 2nd respondent refused to register the document on the ground that it was not signed by all the parties to GPA and in particular the persons in whose favour the GPA was executed. Reference was made to Rule 26 (i) (k) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners filed appeal, under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, before the 1st respondent. The appeal was rejected through order, dated 30.07.2011. Hence, the Writ Petition. The petitioners contend that the requirement that both the parties to the transaction must join the execution of a deed of cancellation would apply only in respect of the transaction of sale and other transfers and not in respect of GPA, even if coupled with interest. They contend that it is the prerogative of any principal to cancel the power of attorney and an agent does not derive any right or title or interest under the said document. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in T. Vishwanadham and others v. Commissioner (Registration and Stamps), Hyderabad and others 2009 (6) ALT 220 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The question as to whether a deed of cancellation can be executed unilaterally by one of the parties, fell for consideration before this Court as well as the Supreme Court. Quite a good number of instances have emerged, wherein the sale deeds executed by vendors in favour of vendees on receiving consideration, were cancelled unilaterally by the vendors without participation or notice to the purchasers. Quite a good number of instances have emerged, wherein the sale deeds executed by vendors in favour of vendees on receiving consideration, were cancelled unilaterally by the vendors without participation or notice to the purchasers. A full bench of this Court took the view that the remedy for an aggrieved party in such cases could be to file a suit and that no illegality can be said to have taken place in the matter of registration of document. That, however, was reversed by the Supreme Court in the recent past. The State has also amended the Registration Rules by incorporating Rule 26 (i) (k) to the effect that whenever any deeds of transfer are sought to be cancelled in a separate document, registration thereof cannot be made unless the document is executed by both the parties. This is the law as it applies to the transactions of transfer of title. The execution of a Power of Attorney, would, under no circumstances, lead to a transaction of transfer of title. By its very nature, the document provides for the authorisation by the principal, enabling the Power of Attorney, to do certain acts on his behalf. It is always the prerogative of the principal to withdraw the authorisation and an agent cannot derive any independent rights under such arrangements. The right of the principal to unilaterally cancel GPA, even if coupled with interest, is recognised in law. He is not under obligation to seek the participation of the agent for cancellation of such GPA. This Court held so, in T. Vishwanadham’s case (supra). Further, Rule 26 (i) (k) of the Rules applies only in respect of transactions of transfer and not in respect of GPA’s. Therefore, the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent on 17.07.2010 cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 30.07.2011, passed by the 1st respondent as well as the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent on 17.07.2010, are set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to process the document presented by the petitioners without reference to Rule 26 (i) (k) of the Rules. The Miscellaneous Petition filed in this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.