M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners assail the action of the District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department, Hyderabad registering cancellation deed dated 23-12-2008 (Doc. No. 3247/2008) cancelling an agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable General Power of Attorney (with possession) dated 19-04-2008 and they seek a declaration that this action is without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the statutory Rules framed thereunder.

2. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.3 to 17 had executed an agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable General Power of Attorney (with possession) on 19-04-2008 being doc. No. 1049/2008, in favour of petitioners in respect of an extent of 8372.2 sq. yards of land in part of Sy. Nos. 137/1 and 2, 138, 139 corresponding T.S. Nos. 15 to 20 and 30P of Amberpet, Hyderabad. Though the document recites that possession of the land was delivered to petitioners, it is pleaded by them that in fact physical possession was not handed over and they had issued instructions to stop payment of the amounts due under the cheques that were issued towards payment of part sale consideration. They contend that this document was unilaterally cancelled by respondent Nos.3 to 17 and said cancellation deed dated 12-12-2008 being doc. No. 3247/2008, was registered by 2nd respondent.

3. On 09-11-2009, this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 31289 of 2009 in this W.P. directed the 2nd respondent not to entertain and admit to registration any document relating to the land which is the subject matter of this W.P.

4. Respondent no. s 3-11, 13 to 17 filed WPMP No. 4032 of 2012 to vacate this order. On 13-12-2012, the same was dismissed and the interim order dated 09-11-2009 was made absolute.

Contentions of Petitioners

5. They contend that unilateral cancellation deed ought not to have been registered without the consent of both parties to the original document and before registering the cancellation deed, no notice had been issued to the petitioners and they did not sign the cancellation deed. They placed reliance on Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the term "conveyance on sale" used in the said Rule not only covers sale deeds but also documents such as agreements of sale-cum-irrevocable General Power of Attorney (with possession) and that since procedure prescribed in the above rule has not been complied with by the 2nd respondent, the cancellation deed has to be declared as null and void.

7. According to him, the said term "conveyance on sale" has not been defined in the Registration Act, 1908 but the said term has been mentioned in sub-clause (10) of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 defining the term "conveyance" that the said term "conveyance" was defined to include a 'conveyance on sale' by which property, whether movable or immovable, or any estate or interest to any property is transferred, or vested in or declared to be of any other person inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule-I or Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 as the case may be. He pointed out that explanation-I to Article 47-A in schedule-IA of the Stamp Act, 1899 deals with an 'agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property' and directs that it shall be chargeable as a "sale" and there are decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court construing agreements of sale of the above nature to be 'sale deeds'. He therefore contends that Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Registration Act, 1908 covers such documents also.

8. According to him, it is sufficient if immovable property is transferred and possession of the property is handed over; and for the purpose of complying the Rule, it is sufficient to look at the recital in the document in question which was later cancelled though the said recital is not decisive. He relied upon the decision in Omprakash vs.