ORDER : The captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 10.02.2023 bearing No.U.No.Ra/03/2022-23 issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-F and consequently, a mandamus to direct respondent No.5 -Sub-Registrar to register the deed titled as “Cancellation of General Power of Attorney” dated 10.02.2023 executed by the petitioner as per Annexure-E in favour of her husband i.e., respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of her husband – respondent No.6. Para 3 and 4 of the registered GPA reads as under: "3) Further I am also in due and payable income tax to the Income Tax Department to the tune of Rs.1,07,00,000/-. Accordingly income tax dept. has also issued notice to me. Therefore I being the lady unable to manage the affairs of said business in controlling and supervising the management of my all business in the said property. Hence I have chosen and decided to appoint my husband being my attorney to do the all work in order to manage the affairs of said business to control over the management by supervising over it and accordingly I have delegated my all powers relating to the said property and said business to my attorney to discharge in the capacity of my attorney on behalf of me. 4) Accordingly I have authorized to my attorney to continue my said business by holding the control and supervision over the it under the power delegated to my attorney as follows: A) My attorney has empowered to discharge the all outstanding due and payable by to the Raddi Co-Op Bank Ltd, Dharwad and get the redeem of mortgage relating to my said property. Accordingly my attorney has already discharged the loan from his own pocket to the tune of Rs.28,56,000/- of the Raddi Co-Op Bank Ltd, Dharwad which was due and payable by me. B) My attorney has to pay the income tax payment to the income tax department on behalf of me which is due and payable by me." 3. The petitioner admits the due execution of the GPA which is the subject matter of the captioned petition. The petitioner alleging that respondent No.6 has breached the terms of GPA, issued a public notice in the newspaper and also issued a legal notice and thereafter, has approached the respondent No.5 -Sub-Registrar to register the deed styled as “Cancellation of GPA”. The petitioner admits the due execution of the GPA which is the subject matter of the captioned petition. The petitioner alleging that respondent No.6 has breached the terms of GPA, issued a public notice in the newspaper and also issued a legal notice and thereafter, has approached the respondent No.5 -Sub-Registrar to register the deed styled as “Cancellation of GPA”. The respondent No.5 -Sub-Registrar vide impugned endorsement has declined to register the deed on the ground that the disputed GPA is coupled with interest and therefore, he has no power to register the cancellation of deed styled as “Cancellation of GPA”. The said impugned endorsement is challenged by the petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1) Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others - (2016) 10 SCC 767 ; 2) Veerabhadrappa and Another vs. Jagadishgouda and Others -ILR 2003 Kar 3042; 3) A.G.Shivalingappa vs. A.G.Shankarappa -ILR 1991 Kar 1804; 4) S.Sreenivasa Rao vs. Sub-Registrar (Headquarters) ILR 1990 Kar 3740; 5) Sri R.Sampath vs. State of Karnataka and Others -W.P.No.18660/2013. 5. Referring to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and by this Court, he would contend that the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a document on any ground other than those contemplated under Rule 171 of the Registration Rules. Referring to the dictum laid down by this Court in the case of A.G.Shivalingappa vs. A.G.Shankarappa (supra), he would vehemently argue and contend that a Sub-Registrar is bound to register a document presented before him and the question in regard to the validity of the document is alien and if the executant admits having executed a document, the Sub-Registrar is bound to register the document, if the same is presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He would further point out that if respondent No.6 is aggrieved by the registration of the document, it is open for him to approach the Civil Court and seek redressal of his grievances. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 reiterating the grounds urged in the statement of objections would, however, contend that the GPA is coupled with interest and therefore, the petitioner cannot unilaterally cancel the registered irrevocable GPA. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 reiterating the grounds urged in the statement of objections would, however, contend that the GPA is coupled with interest and therefore, the petitioner cannot unilaterally cancel the registered irrevocable GPA. He would further point out that the petitioner has already availed the remedy by approaching the Civil Court and it is only on account of dismissal of the suit for non-payment of court fee, the petitioner now intends to nullify the irrevocable GPA by unilaterally presenting a deed titled as "Cancellation of GPA". Therefore, he would point out that respondent No.5 -Sub-Registrar was justified in issuing the endorsement which is in accordance with law and would not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. He would also vehemently argue and contend that since petitioner is alleging breach of conditions enumerated in GPA, the said issue needs to decided by a competent Civil Court and therefore, would request this Court to dismiss the petition. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Seth Loon Karan Sethiya vs. Ivan E.John and Others, AIR 1969 SC 73 . 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also given my anxious consideration to the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-F. 8. This Court has no cavil to the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Veerabhadrappa vs. Jagadishgouda (supra) binds this Court. The Division Bench while examining the power of a Sub-Registrar held that a Sub-Registrar can neither keep the document pending nor impound it on the ground that valuation shown was incorrect. The Division Bench also held that a Sub-Registrar holding the document on the ground that they were undervalued and demanding deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for registration was also held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Sreenivasa Rao vs. Sub-Registrar (supra) also held that registration of a document cannot be prevented by directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the document. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Sreenivasa Rao vs. Sub-Registrar (supra) also held that registration of a document cannot be prevented by directing the Sub-Registrar not to register the document. The Division Bench in the above said judgment has held that if a document is presented for registration by the executant, and in doing so, the executant complies with all the provisions of the Registration Act, it is not open to the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of the document unless he exercises that discretion pursuant to any provision in the Registration Act, 1908. 9. The principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the above cited judgments are not applicable to the present case on hand. In the present case on hand, the petitioner having executed a registered GPA in favour of her husband-respondent No.6, now intends to seek cancellation of GPA by presenting a deed titled as “Cancellation of GPA”. The cancellation of a deed can be equated to rescission of contract. A deed of cancellation amounts to rescission of contract. In contractual matters, the term rescission is used to denote cancellation. Therefore, when a party having executed the document seeks cancellation of the said document, it needs to be viewed in the light of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act and therefore, cancellation must be done bilaterally and not unilaterally. Therefore, a registered deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled by its executant. The only remedy available is to invoke Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. The Registering Authority does not possess quasi judicial power. Though a Registrar has no power to desist from registering a document submitted along with necessary documents, but he is not competent to cancel an already registered document. 10. Once a registered GPA coupled with interest is executed, the person who seeks cancellation of the said document has an efficacious remedy available to him under law namely, to seek cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The registration of documents are paramount to certify the authenticity of the document. 10. Once a registered GPA coupled with interest is executed, the person who seeks cancellation of the said document has an efficacious remedy available to him under law namely, to seek cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The registration of documents are paramount to certify the authenticity of the document. Therefore, when a document is registered in the presence of the parties and is affirmed by the parties that such document registered is real and legally enforceable, Sub-Registrar is under a bounden duty to accept the document presented for registration, but he has absolutely no power to register a document seeking cancellation in absence of both the parties. 11. The role of a Sub-Registrar stands discharged once the document is registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. There is no express provision in the Registration Act, 1908 which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. It is equally trite law that power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. Therefore, in absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that respondent No.5 -Sub-Registrar is competent to cancel the registration of the document in question. Therefore, respondent No.5 was justified in not registering the present document. The respondent No.5 has rightly issued the endorsement vide Annexure-F which is impugned in the captioned petition thereby relegating the petitioner to ventilate her grievances before a competent Civil Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. 12. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same stands accordingly, dismissed. The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.