ORDER : M.NAGAPRASANNA, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: “Wherefore, it is humbly prayed before this Honb’le Court to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned cancellation deed dated. 25-11-2022 registered by the Respondent No. 1 on 28-11-2022 marked at ANNEXURE-A and grant any other relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Gangadhar R. Gurumath appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil representing the respondent. 3. The issue at this juncture is in the subject petition as projected lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner is said to have been anointed as an Uttaradhikari of Shri Jagadguru Shivanand Mutt, Gadag through a deed that was executed from the hands of the respondent No.2, who was the then Senior Mathadipathi (they would be referred to as the Senior Pontiff and the Junior Pontiff for the sake of convenience). The Senior Pontiff, owing to his age and other manifold circumstances, executes a deed of bringing in the Junior Pontiff as the Uttaradikari post his demise. The deed reads as follows. 4. The deed is unequivocal that the petitioner would be the Uttaradikari after his death. This is not in dispute. The issue is after execution of the said deed, it transpires that the respondent No.2 does an unilateral cancelling the said deed. The challenge is to the cancellation of the deed. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled principle of law that a deed validly executed i.e., a bilateral deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the concept of contract would become applicable to the case at hand as well as there cannot be cancellation of a contract which was entered into between two parties by a single party to the contract. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that a civil suit has been filed on challenging the very cancellation of the contract, but if this Court would decide the issue, the rigmarole of trial would be obviated and therefore submits that this Court should entertain the petition and answer the simple issue as to whether there could be unilateral cancellation of a bilateral contract. 6. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would again take this Court through the documents appended to the petition and the statement of objections to demonstrate that the petitioner's right to become an Uttaradikari was only after the demise of the respondent No.2, the executant of the document. Before that, no right of him to become an Uttaradikari can be claimed. The reason for cancellation is that the petitioner anointed himself as an Uttaradikari even when the respondent No.2 was alive. Therefore, the cancellation had to come about. He would submit that suit in O.S. No.45 of 2022 challenges the very same action. Therefore, the parallel remedies should not be permitted to be entertained at the hands of this Court. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petition would now join issue in placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.103965 of 2023 by which the Co-ordinate Bench holds that a document that was executed cannot be cancelled unilaterally. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the issue in the lis is identical to what was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench. 8. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the order that he places reliance upon to buttress his submission as aforesaid is affirmed by the Division Bench as well and therefore, the findings in the order have become final. 9. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The deed executed is quoted herein above. The deed was unequivocal that the petitioner would become Uttaradikari after the demise of the respondent No.2, the executant of the deed. The cancellation comes about on manifold circumstances as is indicated by the learned Senior Counsel or the averment in the statement of objections. This Court would not go into those circumstances at this stage, as the suit in O.S. No.45 of 2022 and the same cause of action is preferred by the petitioner, wherein the issues are framed and matter is set at the stage of evidence, in the said suit. 11. This Court would not go into those circumstances at this stage, as the suit in O.S. No.45 of 2022 and the same cause of action is preferred by the petitioner, wherein the issues are framed and matter is set at the stage of evidence, in the said suit. 11. The only issue is, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench which is affirmed by the Division Bench, as quoted herein above to become applicable to the facts of this case for entertainment of the petition notwithstanding the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.45 of 2022. The Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows: “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 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. 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. 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 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.” 12. The issue therein was the Sub Registrar not registering, the cancellation of the general power of attorney, on the score that the general power of attorney did come about coupled with interest. In the light of the general power of attorney being coupled with interest, an unilateral cancellation by the executant was not finding favour at the hands of the Sub Registrar was affirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench. The said judgment is distinguishable without much ado qua the facts obtaining in the case at hand. In the case at hand, the document was clear that it was to be the anointment or coronation of the petitioner as Uttaradikari would emerge only after the death of the executant. However, I deem it appropriate not to enter into the reasons assigned for cancellation as averred in the statement of objection or otherwise, as all those matters would require evidence and the matter in O.S. No.445 of 2022 is at the stage of evidence. 13. In that light, without expressing any opinion, except the fact that the judgment has been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, the Co-ordinate Bench would not become applicable to the facts of the case. The petitioner is to be terminated. 14. The learned Senior Counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Mahalinga Thambiran Swamigal vs. His Holiness Sri La Sri Kasivasi Arulnandi Thambiran Swamigal , (1974) 1 SCC 150 , where a Will is executed as the successor of a Mutt and the Will is cancelled. The cancellation of the Will was the subject matter of the proceedings which reached the Apex Court. The Apex Court no doubt holds that the cancellation cannot be at the whim stray or the pleasure of the head of the Mutt, who had executed the Will. 15. The cancellation of the Will was the subject matter of the proceedings which reached the Apex Court. The Apex Court no doubt holds that the cancellation cannot be at the whim stray or the pleasure of the head of the Mutt, who had executed the Will. 15. The said judgment at this stage would not render any assistance to the learned Senior Counsel, in the light of the fact that all the issues are pending before the Civil Court. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that the Civil Court would not look into the judgment that was relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the case of (1974) 1 SCC 150 and consider it at the appropriate time. 16. With aforesaid observations, finding no warrant to interfere in the case at hand, the petition stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly.