The petitioner is a private limited company. One of the objects, it has chosen to pursue, is, development and construction. It is said to have acquired land, in and around Guntur town and developed the same. Gorijala Padmaja and Gorijala Srinivasa Rao, claiming to be the Executive Director and Managing Director of the Company, have executed a sale deed dated 27-12-2003, registered as document No.12329/2003 in the office of the 3rd respondent, in favour of one Sri Pentyala Sree Ramulu and Jagarlamudi Lakshmamma. They have also executed sale deed Nos.8348 and 8349/2004, dated 17-07-2004, in favour of Kovi Rama Murthy and Kovi Nagamani, respectively. Through these three sale deeds, vast extent of properties were transferred.

It is stated that Sri K.L. Narasimha Rao, is the present Chairman and Managing Director of the Company. According to him, the sale deeds, executed by Smt. Padmaja and Sri Srinivasa Rao are without any authority, and are tainted with fraud. It is in this background, that the petitioner presented three deeds of cancellation, purporting to cancel the sale deed Nos.12329/2003, dated 27-12-2003, and 8348 and 8349/2004, dated 17-07-2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the document was presented long back and though the 3rd respondent has undertaken extensive correspondence with respondents 1 and 2, the documents have not been registered and released so far.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent ought to have registered the deeds of cancellation, without reference to the respondents 1 and 2, particularly in view of the judgment of a Full Bench in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma (2006 (6) ALD 623 (FB). He contends that the amendment to Rule 26 of A.P. Rules, framed under the Registration Act, by addition of Clause (k) does not apply to the facts of the present case, and the participation of the parties to deeds, which are sought to be cancelled, cannot be insisted upon.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that even if the facts, pleaded by the petitioner, are taken into account, its request cannot be acceded to. He contends that, assuming that there is a change in the composition of Board of Directors, that fact, by itself, cannot confer any right upon the company, to cancel the sale deeds, executed on its behalf. He submits that, in view of the recent amendment to Rule 26 of the Rules, a deed of cancellation can be executed only with the participation of the parties to the document, which is sought to be cancelled.

The petitioner presented a deed of cancellation before the 3rd respondent. The purpose was, to cancel a sale deed dated 27-12-2003, and two sale deeds, dated 17-07-2004, executed on behalf of the company, in favour of Pentyala Sree Ramulu, Jagarlamudi Lakshmi, Kovi Rama Murthy and Kovi Nagamani. Through the said sale deeds, certain items of property were transferred. The petitioner attributed fraud and collusion, apart from lack of title and authority, to the vendors to the sale deeds. The deeds of cancellation, in turn, are executed by a totally different party. Neither the vendor, nor the purchaser to the sale deeds are parties to the deeds of cancellation. On receiving these documents, the 3rd respondent addressed letter dated 15-12-2006 to the 2nd respondent, seeking clarification in the light of the recent amendments to the Rules. The 2nd respondent, in turn, sought clarification from the 1st respondent through letter dated 28-12-2006. Having waited sufficiently, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 02-04-2007 to the 3rd respondent, to release the document.

It is urged that, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma (1 supra), the respondents cannot insist on participation of the parties to the documents, which are sought to be cancelled, for the purpose of registering a deed of cancellation. It is no doubt true that the Full B