The limited powers of the registering authority and the requirement to admit the document for registration if the person presenting it admits its execution.

MP No. 3/2017:

1. In view of the averments made in the application, it is allowed and the documents attached with the application are placed on record.

2. MP is disposed of accordingly.

OWP No. 972/2017:

3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the Order dated 09.06.2017 passed by the Registrar (Principal District Judge) Samba in File No. 13/appeal titled Ashwani Gupta vs. Jaswant Singh and Another, whereby the Registrar, Samba has set aside the order of Sub-Registrar (Sub-Judge), Samba dated 23rd May, 2017 and has directed to register the document of Sale Deed presented before him for registration under Rules.

4. The short grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that he had appointed respondent No. 1 as his lawful attorney in respect of his land measuring 70 kanal 19 marlas situated at village Meen Charkan Tehsil Bari Brahamana District Samba through registered Deed of Attorney dated 23rd July, 2016. The petitioner states that respondent No. 1 started acting in breach of trust reposed in him by the petitioner and, therefore, he had no other option but to revoke the power and, accordingly, the power of attorney granted to respondent No. 1 was cancelled by a Deed of Cancellation of power of attorney registered before the Sub-Registrar (3rd Additional Munsiff), Jammu on 18.10.2016. The petitioner further claims that the aforesaid decision of cancellation of power of attorney was conveyed to respondent No. 1 and he was advised not to act upon the power of attorney given to him as the same stood cancelled by the execution of deed of cancellation. It is averred that respondent No. 1, who was acting prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner, approached the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Samba by way of a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the cancellation of power of attorney and the learned Principal District Judge, Samba vide its ex-parte order dated 01.12.2016, stayed the operation of deed of cancellation of power of attorney dated 18.10.2016. The petitioner further submit that the aforesaid ex-parte interim order was not served upon him and in the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 started acting upon the power of attorney which had since been cancelled and started negotiations with the J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Jammu for transferring the land. The respondent No. 1 thus executed Sale Deeds and presented the same for registration before respondent No. 3. The petitioner has further averred that when he came to know about the attempt of respondent No. 1 to transfer their land in favour of the J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Jammu and that the Sale Deeds on his behalf have been executed and are being presented for registration before the respondent No. 3, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 3 and apprised him of the intervening developments. The respondent No. 3, taking cognizance of the intervening developments, i.e. cancellation of power of attorney and the matter being subjudice before the Principal District Judge, Samba with regard to the aforesaid cancellation, declined to register the Sale Deeds presented by respondent No. 1 in respect of the petitioners’ land on 23rd May, 2017.

5. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 approached the Registrar (Principal District Judge), Samba by way of an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1977. The appeal was contested by the petitioner but ultimately, the respondent No. 2 vide order impugned, accepted the appeal of the respondent No. 1, set aside the order of respondent No. 3 dated 23rd May, 2017 and directed the registration of document of Sale Deed presented before him for registration under Rules.

6. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of learned Registrar, Samba (supra) and have challenged the same on the ground that once the power of attorney given to the respondent No. 1 had been cancelled and the aforesaid fact was brought to notice of respondent No. 3, there was no option with