ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the third respondent in accepting the Sale Deed, dated 19.10.2022 vide document No.10698/2022 for registration executed by the petitioners 1 to 3 herein represented by their Power of Attorney Holder, the fourth respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (‘the Act, 1908” for brevity) and the Rules made thereunder and also sought for a consequential direction to cancel the registration of the said sale deed. 2. Heard Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. A. Chandana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the sixth respondent. 3. This Writ Petition is filed by four petitioners. The petitioners 1 to 3 are the original land owners of the property covered by the impugned sale deed. The fourth petitioner, who is also the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is one of the Power of Attorney Holders under registered General Power of Attorneys (“GPAs” for short) dated 28.03.1994 and 28.03.1995 vide document Nos.875/1994 and 68/1995 along with the fourth respondent herein. 4. The only ground on which the present Writ Petition is filed is that the petitioners 1 to 3 herein have executed registered GPAs vide document Nos.875/1994 and 68/1995 in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of the impugned sale deed appointing the fourth petitioner herein and the fourth respondent herein as Attorneys with a right to alienate the land, which was the subject matter of the said GPAs, but the third respondent herein allowed the registration of the impugned Sale Deed executed by the fourth respondent herein on behalf of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein by virtue of the GPAs vide document Nos.875/1994 and 68/1995 without the fourth petitioner herein participating in the said execution of the impugned Sale Deed. Thus, it is contended that the above referred two GPAs were executed in favour of the fourth petitioner and the fourth respondent jointly and both of them have to act jointly in order to execute any document by virtue of the power conferred on them under the said GPAs. 5. Thus, it is contended that the above referred two GPAs were executed in favour of the fourth petitioner and the fourth respondent jointly and both of them have to act jointly in order to execute any document by virtue of the power conferred on them under the said GPAs. 5. Having considered the said contention raised in the Writ Petition, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how this Writ Petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners 1 to 3 herein represented by the fourth petitioner herein alone without the participation of the fourth respondent herein who is also one of the Power of Attorney Holders under the above said GPAs and also asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners 1 to 3 are ready to come before this Court supporting the case of the fourth petitioner in challenging the impugned Sale Deed. Learned counsel for the fourth petitioner stated that the petitioners 1 to 3 are not ready to come forward to question the impugned sale deed personally along with the fourth petitioner. In view of the said situation, this Court raised a question as to how the Writ Petition is maintainable at the instance of the petitioners 1 to 3, if they are not aggrieved by the impugned Sale Deed and the fourth petitioner is only one of the Power of Attorney Holders who is supposed to act on behalf of the petitioners 1 to 3. Confronted with the same, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fourth petitioner, in his individual capacity also filed the present Writ Petition and therefore, the Writ Petition is maintainable though the petitioners 1 to 3 are not ready to come before this Court personally and though the fourth petitioner alone is not entitled to represent the petitioners 1 to 3. 6. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the petitioners 1 to 3, who are the owners of the land, which is the subject matter of the impugned Sale Deed, are not aggrieved by the execution and registration of the impugned sale deed in favour of the sixth respondent. If that be the case, the fourth petitioner herein is only one of the Power of Attorney Holders under document Nos.875/1994 and 68/1995. If that be the case, the fourth petitioner herein is only one of the Power of Attorney Holders under document Nos.875/1994 and 68/1995. A perusal of the said Power of Attorneys indicates that no right as such conferred on the fourth petitioner except to act on behalf of the petitioners 1 to 3 nor any interest is created in favour of the fourth petitioner herein in the property, which is the subject matter of the said GPAs and the impugned Sale Deed. In the light of the above, the fourth petitioner herein cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by the impugned action of the third respondent in entertaining registration of the impugned Sale Deed. If the ground, on which this Writ Petition is filed, as noted hereinabove, is to be accepted, the Writ Petition is incompetent insofar as the petitioners 1 to 3 are concerned, as it is only the fourth petitioner who signed for the petitioners 1 to 3 and the fourth respondent has not signed. 7. Further, it is also evident from the material on record that in respect of the very same property, which is the subject matter of the impugned Sale Deed, there was a civil litigation in O.S.No.88 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, wherein the petitioners 1 to 3 were arrayed as defendants 1 to 3 and the fourth petitioner and the fourth respondent herein were arrayed as defendants 5 and 6. In the said suit, the fourth petitioner herein filed a written statement dated 15.03.2003 stating that he has no claim in respect of the property that was the subject matter of the said O.S.No.88 of 2002 and he has no objection for granting the relief, as prayed for in the said suit. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court by a judgment and decree dated 15.03.2003 and the same was reversed by this Court in A.S.No.998 of 2010 dated 23.04.2021 and finally, the matter landed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2752-53 of 2022 wherein the said Civil Appeals were allowed by an order dated 04.05.2022 thereby dismissing O.S.No.88 of 2002. From the above, it is evident that the fourth petitioner herein had made a categorical statement that he has no interest in the property, which was the subject matter of O.S.No.88 of 2002. 8. There is no dispute that the subject matter of the impugned Sale Deed is part and parcel of the property, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.88 of 2002. Having made a categorical statement that he has no interest involved in the subject property and in the absence of any interest created in the fourth petitioner and in the absence of the petitioners 1 to 3 being ready to question the impugned Sale Deed personally, the fourth petitioner cannot be said to be a person interested or person aggrieved entitled to question the registration of impugned Sale Deed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013)4 SCC 465 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, having considered the issue as to whether the person interested or a person who is not an aggrieved person can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held at paras-9, 10 and 17 as under:- “It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 , Saghir Ahman v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728 , Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B., AIR 1962 SC 1044 , Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P., (1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996 SC 2736 and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar, (2009) 2 SCC 784 .] A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR 1974 SC 1719 and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361 .) In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarized to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others.” In the light of the undisputed factual situation, especially in the absence of any averment that the right or interest of the fourth petitioner is affected by virtue of impugned Sale Deed, the fourth petitioner herein cannot be said to be a person aggrieved nor the person interested in the property, which is the subject matter of the impugned Sale Deed and hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition at the instance of the fourth petitioner herein, especially in the context of the fact that the petitioners 1 to 3 herein have not come forward before this Court personally to support the case of the fourth petitioner. 10. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the authority of the fourth respondent to execute the impugned Sale Deed alone without the fourth petitioner herein as Joint Signatory along with the fourth respondent while executing the impugned sale deed is concerned, a perusal of the contents of the GPAs vide document Nos.875/1994 and 681995 assumes importance. The said GPAs are executed by the petitioners 1 to 3 herein and others appointing the fourth petitioner and the fourth respondent as Attorneys. There is no specific clause contained in the entire GPAs mandating that both the Attorneys have to act jointly nor there is anything to show that they were appointed as Joint Attorneys nor there was any prohibition prohibiting any of the Attorneys to act individually and perform the authorities/duties conferred upon them under the said GPAs. In the absence of any such restriction requiring the Attorneys to act in a particular manner, either jointly or otherwise, it cannot be said that one of the Power of Attorneys is not entitled to act as such. However, the said issue may not detain this Court from deciding this matter in the light of the conclusion already arrived at by this Court, as above. 11. However, the said issue may not detain this Court from deciding this matter in the light of the conclusion already arrived at by this Court, as above. 11. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the fourth petitioner on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Punjab National Bank v. Britannia Industries Ltd., 2001 SCC Online Cal 160 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Britannia Industries Ltd., v. Punjab National Bank, (2013) 10 SCC 642 are concerned, they are the cases where the terms of the GPA mandated the manner in which the Attorneys are supposed to act in the facts and circumstances of the said case. Therefore, the law laid down in the said judgments has no application to the facts on hand. Further, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the fourth petitioner on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd., v. S.P. Velayutham, (2022) 8 SCC 210 and the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. The Inspector General of Registration & Others, W.P.No.33462 of 2014 holding that the registering authority, while entertaining registration of the documents, is under obligation to verify whether the person executing the document as well as the person presenting the document for registration are the right persons or not and as to whether they are entitled to execute the document either in their personal capacity or through their agent or not. They are the requirements to be verified by the registering authority concerned under Section 34 of the Act, 1908. The same is a settled legal position and there is no quarrel in that regard. However, in the considered view of this Court, there is no illegality or irregularity in allowing registration of the impugned sale deed executed by one of the Power of Attorney Holders representing the principals. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any error, illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the third respondent in registering the impugned Sale Deed. 12. In the light of the above and for the reasons aforementioned, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. 12. In the light of the above and for the reasons aforementioned, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. If at all the fourth petitioner herein has got any right, title or interest by virtue of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by petitioners 1 to 3 herein in his favour and any such right and interest are affected by virtue of the impugned Sale Deed, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the common law remedy and agitate his claim. But, under no circumstances, the jurisdiction of this Court can be allowed to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the interim order passed in this Writ Petition shall stand dissolved. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.