Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a woman, had executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of her husband (respondent No.6) to manage her business affairs, including outstanding loans and tax liabilities. The GPA contained recitals that the husband had already discharged a loan from his own pocket and was authorized to pay income tax dues. Alleging breach of the terms of the GPA, the petitioner issued a public notice and a legal notice, then approached the Sub-Registrar (respondent No.5) to register a deed titled “Cancellation of General Power of Attorney”. The Sub-Registrar issued an endorsement dated 10.02.2023 refusing to register the deed on the ground that the GPA was coupled with interest and he had no power to register its unilateral cancellation. The petitioner challenged this endorsement by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking certiorari to quash the endorsement and mandamus to direct the Sub-Registrar to register the cancellation deed. The core legal issue was whether the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing to register the unilateral cancellation of a registered irrevocable GPA, particularly one coupled with interest. The petitioner argued, relying on various precedents, that a Sub-Registrar is bound to register any document presented by the executant if it complies with the Registration Act and Rules, and that the validity of the document is not a matter for the Registering Authority to decide. The respondents contended that the GPA was irrevocable and coupled with interest, and therefore cancellation had to be bilateral; the petitioner had already approached a civil court which dismissed the suit for non-payment of court fee, and now sought to nullify the GPA unilaterally, which was impermissible. The court analysed the nature of cancellation of a deed, equating it to rescission of contract under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. It held that cancellation must be bilateral, not unilateral, and that a registered deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled by its executant. The only remedy available was to invoke Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that they dealt with the Sub-Registrar’s duty to register documents that were otherwise in order, but did not cover situations involving unilateral cancellation of an already registered deed. It emphasized that once a document is registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the Sub-Registrar’s role is discharged and no express provision empowers him to recall or cancel such registration. The power to cancel registration is a substantive matter, and the Sub-Registrar has no quasi-judicial authority in this regard. The court found that the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing registration and issuing the impugned endorsement. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the pending interlocutory application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Contract Law – Rescission of Contract – Unilateral Cancellation of Deed – Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 62 – The petitioner, having executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney coupled with interest in favour of her husband, sought to unilaterally cancel it by presenting a cancellation deed for registration. The Court held that cancellation of a deed amounts to rescission of contract, and under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, such cancellation must be done bilaterally, not unilaterally. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to seek cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Paras 9-10) B) Registration Law – Powers and Duties of Sub-Registrar – Registration of Cancellation Deed – Registration Act, 1908, Section 17 – The Sub-Registrar has no power to register a document that seeks to unilaterally cancel a previously registered document, as such cancellation is a substantive matter beyond the Registrar’s jurisdiction. Once a document is registered under Section 17, the Sub-Registrar’s role is discharged, and there is no express provision in the Registration Act empowering recall of registration. The Sub-Registrar was therefore justified in issuing the endorsement refusing registration. (Paras 10-11) C) Registration Law – Sub-Registrar’s Duty to Register – Distinction from Precedents – Registration Act, 1908, Rules – Karnataka Registration Rules, Rule 171 – The petitioner cited judgments holding that a Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration except on grounds specified in Rule 171. The Court distinguished these precedents, noting that they involved non-compliance or undervaluation issues, whereas the present case concerned the substantive validity of a unilateral cancellation, which is per se impermissible. Consequently, the Sub-Registrar’s refusal did not violate the duty to register as laid down in those cases. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing to register the deed of cancellation of an irrevocable General Power of Attorney on the ground that it was coupled with interest and cancellation must be bilateral?
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court held that unilateral cancellation of a registered deed is impermissible; cancellation of a deed amounts to rescission of contract and must be bilateral under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. The remedy lies under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, not before the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar had no power to register the unilateral cancellation deed, and the impugned endorsement was justified. Pending interlocutory application was disposed of.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Cancellation of deed amounts to rescission of contract
- Cancellation must be done bilaterally under Section 62 of Indian Contract Act
- Unilateral cancellation of registered document not permissible
- Remedy for cancellation lies under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act
- Sub-Registrar has no quasi-judicial power to cancel registered document
- Registration Act
- 1908 does not expressly empower Registrar to recall registration
- Power to cancel registration is a substantive matter
- Sub-Registrar cannot register unilateral cancellation of a registered deed
