T VISHWANADHAM Vs. COMMISSIONER REGISTRATIONS AND STAMPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KADEM Beeraiah, alias Beerappa, the 5th respondent herein, is said to have executed a General Power of Attorney for consideration, in favour of the petitioners herein, and one, Mr. P. Bal Reddy, on 15-09-1995. It is stated that the Sub-Registrar, Bibinagar, the 4th respondent herein, cancelled the GPA through a document dated 08-07-2008; and together with respondents 6 to 8, the 5th respondent entered into an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, in favour of respondents 9 to 12. On 15-07-2008, the petitioners complain that the 4th respondent herein ought not to have registered the deed of cancellation.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

(3.) A registered GPA was executed in favour of the petitioners and one, Mr. Bal reddy, on 15-09-1995, by the 5th respondent. 12 years thereafter, the GPA was cancelled. It may be true that a GPA, coupled with interest, cannot be cancelled unilaterally. For that, the petitioners have to seek remedy elsewhere. The registration of the deed of cancellation cannot be in violation of rule 26 (i) (k) of the A. P. Rules, framed under the Registration Act, 1908. The prohibition contained in that Rule operates only as regards the deeds of conveyance. A GPA, even if it is coupled with interest, cannot be treated as a deed of conveyance. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the registration of deed of cancellation of power of attorney. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by any acts or omissions on the part of respondents 5 to 8, they have to work out the remedies by filing a suit.