ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Krishna Suman, learned counsel representing Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sahas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the 4 th respondent. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 3 rd respondent i.e. the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District at Moosapaet, Hyderabad in entertaining the registration of document dated 08.07.2011 bearing No.6153/2011 stated as “Cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing Doc.No.3150/2011” as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to set aside the same. 3. It was contended by the petitioner that the 4 th respondent is the owner of plot bearing No.447 admeasuring 300 sq. yards in Sy.No.78 to 93 situated at Kondapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and that in respect of the said property, the 4 th respondent had executed an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney along with possession on 05.10.2009 in favour of the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs.39,00,000/-, the total sale consideration was paid to the 4 th respondent, on receipt of the total sale consideration, the 4 th respondent acknowledged and entered into the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney. 4. Petitioner further contends that the 4 th respondent lodged a complaint on 10.10.2019 before the Station House Officer, Sanathnagar Police Station alleging that the agreement of sale- cum-General Power of Attorney with possession dated 05.10.2009 is a sham document, and that it was a loan transaction between the 4 th respondent and the petitioner, and that the petitioner was duped and made to execute the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession, thereby Cr.No.649/2009 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC, after investigation, the police filed charge sheet. 5. 5. It was further contended that the 4 th respondent approached the 2 nd respondent seeking cancellation of document dated 05.10.2009, thereupon a memo dated 07.02.2011 was issued by the 2 nd respondent directing the 3 rd respondent to accept the cancellation of document, if it is otherwise in order, thereby the 3 rd respondent had entertained the document dated 08.07.2011 without considering that the said document was executed unilaterally without consent, which is contrary to Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Rules’). 6. Petitioner further contends that a specific remedy is provided under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for cancellation of a document or instrument, and that it is settled law that unilateral cancellation is void and illegal, and that the party aggrieved has to knock the doors of a competent Civil Court for cancellation of such document or for declaration of such document as null and void, but, instead the 4 th respondent had executed the unilateral cancellation deed. 7. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to declare the action of 3 rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same. 8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , (2016) 10 SCC 767 wherein it was held that the power to register a document of cancellation cannot be construed to confer a quasi-judicial power on the registering authority, and it is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court, the cancellation deed can be registered and that too, after notice to the parties concerned, and that the Rules make clear that both cancellation deed as well as registration were wholly void and non-est in the eye of law. 9. The Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand (supra) observed as under: “Section 17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory registration. Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b). There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registration after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b). There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registration after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered. ….. Once the document is registered, it is not open to any Authority, under the 1908 Act to cancel the registration. The remedy of appeal provided under the 1908 Act, in Part XII in particular Section 72, is limited to the inaction or refusal by the Registering Officer to register a document. The power conferred on the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to cancel the registration of documents already registered. The role of Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered.” 10. The 3 rd respondent-Joint Sub Registrar-I filed counter- affidavit stating that the 4 th respondent executed and presented a Cancellation Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 08.07.2011 revoking the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney previously executed by her in favour of the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner approached her to provide loan of Rs.30,00,000/- and demanded her to execute registered mortgage deed towards security for repayment of loan to be advanced by her and that the petitioner, instead of simple mortgage, has created an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in her favour by fraudulent means. 11. It was further contended by the 3 rd respondent that the 4 th respondent herein viz., Smt.Mikkilineni Baby Sarojini submitted representations dated 30.04.2011 and 30.05.2011 to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in turn by Memos dated 06.05.2011 and 03.06.2011 directed the 2 nd respondent to dispose of the matter by conducting enquiry. 11. It was further contended by the 3 rd respondent that the 4 th respondent herein viz., Smt.Mikkilineni Baby Sarojini submitted representations dated 30.04.2011 and 30.05.2011 to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, who in turn by Memos dated 06.05.2011 and 03.06.2011 directed the 2 nd respondent to dispose of the matter by conducting enquiry. Thereafter the 2 nd respondent vide Memo dated 07.07.2021 instructed the 3 rd respondent to accept the cancellation presented by the executants, if it is otherwise in order, in view of the finding of the investigation by the police officials in respect of the property, and upon the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration Stamps, the 3 rd respondent registered the Cancellation deed vide Doc.No.6153/2011 and the same is in accordance with the prevailing instructions. 12. It was further contended by the 3 rd respondent that in fact, in the year 2011 itself, the 4 th respondent filed O.S.No.311/2011 against the Writ petitioner on the file of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for declaration of title in respect of the subject property and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with her peaceful possession of the subject property, and the said suit was decreed on 06.04.2016. 13. On the other hand, Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 4 th respondent filed counter-affidavit contending that the present Writ Petition is filed with distorted facts to mislead this Court inasmuch as a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC, and also suppressing the factum of filing of O.S.No.311 of 2011 before the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar by the 4 th respondent against the Writ Petitioner and also passing of decree declaring the Doc.No.3150/2011 as sham, fictitious and null and void and not enforceable and binding on the 4 th respondent. 14. It was further pleaded by the 4 th respondent that Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Rules is not applicable to the present case facts as it cannot be considered as unilateral cancellation as fraud has been played by the Writ petitioner and fraud vitiates everything and therefore, the same cannot be given assent and it cannot be perpetrated and the document itself is void ab initio. 15. 15. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions urged by the parties, and perused the record. 16. Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Rules states as under : “26(i) (k) (i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale: Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a government officer competent to execute government orders declaring the properties contained in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be government or assigned or endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law.” 17. The agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney has two separable parts which can be enforced jointly and separately. The part of agreement for sale does bestow certain interest to the holder which can be enforced under law. The attorney under General Power of Attorney can be broadly placed and described as an ‘agent’ as defined under Section 182 and Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which deals with agent having interest over the subject property. 18. Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act states as under: “202. Termination of agency, where agent has an interest in subject-matter.— “Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. 19. The petitioner contends that the agreement of sale-cum- General Power of Attorney is coupled with interest in the form of sale consideration of Rs.39,00,000/-, which was also admitted by the 4 th respondent, whereas the 4 th respondent denied the receipt of consideration and the execution of documents in the form it states. 19. The petitioner contends that the agreement of sale-cum- General Power of Attorney is coupled with interest in the form of sale consideration of Rs.39,00,000/-, which was also admitted by the 4 th respondent, whereas the 4 th respondent denied the receipt of consideration and the execution of documents in the form it states. However, the point is that the document which speaks for itself discloses that some consideration has been passed under the document. Therefore, Section 202 of the Contract Act bars unilateral cancellation of the document by the executant. 20. The execution of registered document is a fait accompli. Once a document is fully registered, the District Registrar has no power to cancel the document except by way of a decree passed by the competent Civil Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, the action of the 3 rd respondent in registering the impugned cancellation deed is not in accordance with law. 21. A perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent would indicate that the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney was declared as sham and nominal document by a decree passed in O.S.No.311 of 2011 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar during pendency of the present Writ Petition proceedings. However, the petitioner did not even contradict the same by way of filing a reply denying the averment of pendency of the suit, though the petitioner is a party to the suit and contesting the matter before the trial Court. 22. A further perusal of the documents reveal that it was not brought to the notice of the Court of any appeal is preferred by the Writ petitioner against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.311 of 2011 and obtaining of any interim order suspending the said order, pending appeal leaving this Court to presume of attaining finality of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.311 of 2011. 23. The law is well settled that a sale deed executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar cannot be cancelled unilaterally on the ground that a part of sale consideration not having been paid. 23. The law is well settled that a sale deed executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar cannot be cancelled unilaterally on the ground that a part of sale consideration not having been paid. The only recourse available under law is to sue for recovery of unpaid balance sale consideration, and even assuming if really there was an unpaid balance sale consideration, the remedy available to the parties is to approach the competent Civil Court by way of filing a suit for recovery of amount. 24. In my view, before entertaining cancellation deed, the Sub- Registrar has no business to issue notice to the purchasers under a registered sale deed which was registered earlier unless there is an order of competent Civil Court for cancellation of earlier registered sale deed. Admittedly, the Sub-Registrar (3 rd respondent) has no authority to decide the alleged fraud and undue influence as pleaded by the parties. The Civil Court alone has to decide the alleged fraud and undue influence. 25. In the above contest, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2010) 15 SCC 207 in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2007 and batch, held : “5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(k)(i) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 … … …. Rule also supports the observations we have made above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions.” 26. Admittedly, the 3 rd respondent has no power to cancel the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney unilaterally without following the due procedure and without issuing any notice to the affected parties. Despite there being a decree by a competent Civil Court, the cancellation can be done by the Registrar only after issuing notice and following due procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate, to meet the ends of justice, to set aside the impugned registration of document dated 08.07.2011 vide Doc.No.6153/2011. Despite there being a decree by a competent Civil Court, the cancellation can be done by the Registrar only after issuing notice and following due procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate, to meet the ends of justice, to set aside the impugned registration of document dated 08.07.2011 vide Doc.No.6153/2011. 27. Accordingly, the impugned registration of document dated 08.07.2011 vide Doc.No.6153/2011 is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the 3 rd respondent with a direction to decide the matter afresh duly taking into consideration of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.311 of 2011 dated 06.04.2016 and also by giving notice to all the concerned parties and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to them and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within period three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 28. Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 29. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.