cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

 

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

 

WRIT PETITION No.32170, 32171, 32172 and 32178 of 2011

BETWEEN

K. Dasaradaiah.

... PETITIONER

AND

 

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By the District Collector, Chittoor and others.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S.V. MUNI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

                                               

The Court made the following order:
COMMON ORDER:

          These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner alleging that respondent 3 in WP.No.32170 of 2011 and respondents 3 and 4 respectively in the other writ petitions have executed sale deeds relating to petitioner’s property in favour of fourth respondent in WP.No.32170 of 2011 and respondent No.5 in the other writ petitions respectively. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the said sale deeds, which are executed and registered by the registering authorities, purporting to convey title, as aforesaid, have no legal effect whatsoever, as the petitioner claims to be the real owner of the property and thereby the said sale deeds do not bind the petitioner.  Petitioner, however, approached the registering authorities seeking cancellation of the said sale deeds and on refusal thereof by the registering authorities; the present writ petitions seeking Mandamus are filed.

2.       After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner also,
I am not inclined to entertain these writ petitions for the simple reason that the petitioner is not a party to the alleged registered sale deeds. 

Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party.  

Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered.  

Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.

          The writ petitions, therefore, are misconceived and are accordingly dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.  There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

December 8, 2011

DSK