Judgment : Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. This application is filed by the petitioner/appellant seeking leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 19-02-2010 passed in W.P. No.3752 of 2010 by which His Lordship was pleased to pass the following order: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to receive, process and register the documents executed by the petitioners transferring their rights of title in respect of any part of their land i.e., Ac.10.00 situated in Survey No.275/1C of Adivivaram village as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant says that the aforesaid order was passed suppressing the material fact that his client and the writ petitioners are fighting with regard to the title of the property in question before the Inams Tribunal. He also says that the writ petitioners do not have any right, title or interest in the property at all and the property in question belongs to the appellant temple which is the absolute owner thereof. He further submits that by the aforesaid order the writ petitioners will have an extra right which they do not have. 3. We have noted the above argument of the learned counsel and we are unable to accept his contention that by this order his clients right is taken away. Any one can present a document lawfully before the Registration Authority to register the document and if requirements of law are complied with, registration has to be done. That is what the learned Trial Judge decided and His Lordship has not decided the right, title or interest of the writ petitioners in the property in question. Whatever right the writ petitioners are having that will be conveyed. 4. According to us, it is a settled proposition of law that executing a document or registering the same in favour of any third party itself will not create any new right, title or interest, as it conveys whatever lawful right, if any, is subsisting to the transferee. 5. Regarding the effect of such registration, Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is the relevant provision, which is set out hereunder: 31. 5. Regarding the effect of such registration, Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is the relevant provision, which is set out hereunder: 31. When cancellation may be ordered:- (1) Any person against whom a written instrument if void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable, and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation. 6. Even if any document is registered, the same is liable to be cancelled by laying a challenge before the civil Court. More so, Section 34 of the said Act also provides for declaratory relief and the provision of Section 38 thereof provides for a perpetual injunction. We hold that by the impugned order right of the petitioner is not affected at all. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant says that the temple is in possession of the property. Under the circumstances, we clarify that it is always open to the petitioner/appellant to approach the civil Court, if occasion arises. 8. W.A.M.P. No.465 of 2011 is accordingly dismissed. In consequence, W.A. (SR) No.43124 of 2011 shall also stand dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.