IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI
JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Writ Petition No.21162 of 2010
ORDER:
The petitioners and
respondent No.5 entered into an agreement of sale with the 4th respondent –
Construction Company, for developing a piece of land situated in Ibrahimpatnam,
Krishna District. An agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. was executed by them in
favour of the 4th respondent, on 01.10.2007. Alleging that the 4th respondent did not
honour the schedule of construction and that it had violated the conditions of
the agreement of sale, the petitioners proposed to cancel the G.P.A. Accordingly, they
submitted a document of cancellation of G.P.A. before the 3rd respondent. The latter refused to
admit the document to registration, on the basis of a circular dated
31.03.2010. The petitioners challenge the circular as well as
the refusal by the 3rd respondent to admit the document for registration. They contend that
once a G.P.A. is executed by them, they have prerogative to cancel and there
does not exist any justification for the respondents in not registering the
document.
A counter-affidavit
is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Separate
counter-affidavits are filed by respondents 4 and 5.
Heard Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for
the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri G.Vivekanand, learned
counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri B.AdinarayanaRao,
learned counsel for the
5th respondent.
5th respondent.
The petitioners and
the 5th respondent joined in executing an agreement of
sale-cum-GPA in favour of the 4th respondent. The petitioners felt
that the 4th respondent did not honour certain terms of the
contract. Therefore, they intended to cancel the GPA, and
accordingly, presented a document for registration.
The 2nd respondent issued a
circular, dated 31.03.2010. The operative portion of the said circular reads:
“It
therefore, in continuation of the instructions issued in the reference cited,
the following instructions are issued that no registering officer shall
register a deed of revocation/cancellation of General power of attorney coupled
with previously registered documents of agreements of sale to safe guard the
interest of the Agent/Vendee. In case if any such deeds of
revocation/cancellation of General Power of Attorney combined with Agreement of Sale/
Development Agreements is presented for registration, the Registering Officers
are directed to refuse the document for registration citing the instructions
issued in this memo.”
From this, it is
clear that in case there exists general power of attorney coupled with
obligation, namely agreement-of-sale, a deed of revocation/cancellation of such
document executed by one of the parties to the transaction, cannot be admitted
to registration. As a matter of fact, the circular enunciates the settled
principle of law. It hardly needs any emphasis that whenever a contract is
brought about between two individuals or agencies and mutual obligations are
created thereunder, cancellation of the contract of the document can take
place only with the participation of both. If one of the parties
does not agree for cancellation, the only course for such party is to approach
a civil Court and seek necessary remedy. The petitioners are
not able to point out as to which provision of law does the circular violate.
The petitioners have
another insurmountable difficulty in proposing to cancel the GPA. As observed earlier,
the GPA was executed by the petitioners and the 5th respondent in favour
of the 4th respondent. In the proposed
cancellation deed, the 5th respondent did not figure as a party. When so many
anomalies are there, the 3rd respondent cannot be
expected to register the document.
The writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their
remedies in a civil Court.
There shall be no
order as to costs.
____________________
L.NARASIMHA
REDDY, J.
Dated:19.01.2012
Note: Furnish C.C. in one week.
(B/o)
GJ
No comments:
Post a Comment