M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. Since common point arises for consideration in all these revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioners in these Revisions are third parties to OS Nos. 58 of 2007 and 154 of 2007 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy.

2. Both these suits had been filed for specific performance and permanent injunction.

3. OS No. 58 of 2007 was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in CRP Nos. 1156 of 2014 and 1159 of 2014 against 5th respondent therein originally. Thereafter respondent Nos. 6 to 14 were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 9.

4. OS No. 154 of 2007 was filed by 1st respondent in CRP Nos. 1158 of 2014 and 1161 of 2014 against 2nd respondent therein and respondent Nos. 3 to 11 have been impleaded therein subsequently.

5. The subject-matter of both these suits is land in Sy. Nos. 833, 834, 836, 837 and 838 of Patancheru Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. In OS No. 154 of 2007 only Acs. 3.00 is the subject-matter while in OS No. 58 of 2007, Acs. 12.415 gts. is the subject-matter.

6. The petitioners in both these Revisions filed applications IA No. 397 of 2013 in OS No. 154 of 2007 and IA No. 414 of 2013 in OS No. 58 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., to implead themselves as defendants in the two suits.

7. One Prathipati Srinivas claiming to be the Special Power of Attorney Holder of petitioners filed IA No. 400 of 2013 in OS No. 58 of 2007 and IA No. 398 of 2013 in OS No. 154 of 2007 under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice to permit him to appear on behalf of petitioners claiming that petitioners herein had executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 21.7.2012 in his favour in respect of properties including the properties which are subject-matter of the above suits authorising him to pursue all the affairs and issues on behalf of petitioners and that under the said Power of Attorney, he was authorized to file civil and criminal cases against any persons in respect of the property which is subject-matter of both the suits. He contended that the said Power of Attorney empowered him to appoint Advocates, to file cases and to represent in pending cases on behalf of petitioners since the petitioners are unable to personally appear and pursue the matters before the Courts and other authorities.

8. The applications under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice were opposed by 2nd respondent in CRP No. 1158 of 2014, who is 5th respondent in CRP No. 1159 of 2014 and also other respondents. They contended that the irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 21.7.1992 being relied upon by the Power of Attorney Holder requires to be compulsorily registered since it is in the nature of an agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney and is inadmissible in evidence. They also contended that Rule 33 of the Civil Rules of Practice was not followed.

9. By separate orders dated 17.2.2014, the I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy dismissed all the applications. The Court below considered the contents of the irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 21.7.1992 and held that it not only requires registration but it is also insufficiently stamped as per the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 and in view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, it is not admissible without paying proper stamp duty and penalty. It held that the irrevocable General Power of Attorney was executed for a consideration and that the petitioners had transferred all their rights in the schedule property to their attorney and also conferred the power of sale upon him apart from declaring extinguishment of their rights over the property. It rejected the contention of the petitioners that the rights conferred on the petitioners in respect of the schedule property were not alienable under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 since it deals with future rights and held that Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with future rights also. It further held that the irrevoca