Issue: The Full Bench addressed batch writ petitions challenging Sub-Registrars' registration of unilateral "cancellation deeds" purporting to nullify prior registered sale deeds, raising questions on validity of such cancellations, registering officers' duties under the Registration Act, 1908, and writ maintainability under Article 226. (!) (!) (!) [2000273430001]

Majority Holding (per V.V.S. Rao, J., concurred by G. Chandraiah, J.): - A registered sale deed under TP Act S.54 transfers ownership, but vendors retain locus to challenge via civil suit (Specific Relief Act Ss.31/34); unilateral cancellation deeds are registrable if compliant with Registration Act Ss.17/18 (non-testamentary instruments purporting to extinguish rights). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Registering officers must examine documents (Ss.19-22,32,35; Rules 26,58) for formalities/identity but cannot inquire into title/validity or refuse beyond statutory grounds; refusal triggers appeals/suit (Ss.71-77). (!) (!) (!) - Disputes involve serious factual issues (fraud, consideration, authority) requiring evidence; writs inappropriate due to private law nature, alternative civil remedy, and judicial review limits (no disputed facts/adjudication). (!) (!) (!) [2000273430094] - Result: Writs dismissed; parties relegated to civil court. (!) (!)

Dissent (per Bilal Nazki, J.): Sale irrevocably extinguishes vendor's rights (TP Act Ss.5,8,54); unilateral cancellation deeds void/fraudulent (Contract Act S.23), against public policy; Sub-Registrars must refuse as they nullify prior registrations improperly; writs allowed to quash. (!) (!) (!)

Outcome: Writs dismissed by majority (2:1); civil suits directed; no costs; SLPC leave granted. (!) (!)