Telangana High Court
Mahan Sudan Kanake And Ano. vs Prl. Secy., Stamps And Reg. And 3 Ors. on 26 June, 2025
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
*****
W.P.No.3622 of 2016
Between:
Mohan Sudan Kanake and another.
...Petitioners.
AND
1. The State of Telangana rep. by Principle Secretary to
Government Revenue (Stamps and Registration)
Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and
others.
...Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 26.06.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to
see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their : Yes/No
Lordship/Ladyship wish to see
the fair copy of judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
2
SK, J
WP No.3622 of 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ W.P.No.3622 of 2016
%Dated 26.06.2025
# Mohan Sudan Kanake and another.
...Petitioners.
AND
1. The State of Telangana rep. by Principle Secretary to
Government Revenue (Stamps and Registration)
Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and
others.
...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners: Sri S. Chandra Sekhar.
^ Counsel for Respondents:Smt S. Sravanthi, Assistant
Government Pleader for Stamps and
Registration.
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
Cases referred :
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448
3
SK, J
WP No.3622 of 2016
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.3622 of 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 in registering the deed of
revocation of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney vide
document No.30/2015 dated 29.12.2015 executed by the
respondent No.4 without the knowledge of petitioners in
contravention of Section 202 of Indian Contract Act, 1982
as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned Counsel for the
petitioners and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
respondent No.4 and her son have executed Irrevocable
Registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.08.2015
before the office of the respondent No.3 vide document
No.22/2015 appointing the petitioners as Joint General
Power of Attorneys for the works relating to grant of
SK, J
compensation by Indian Railways in respect of the acquired
land of the respondent No.4 and other works relating to
eviction of encroachers. The respondent No.4 got issued a
legal notice dated 19.12.2015 to the petitioners to stop all
acts pursuant to the document dated 06.08.2015 and also
executed revocation of irrevocable GPA deed
dated 29.12.2015 vide document No.30/2015 without
issuing any notice of revocation. He further submits that as
per Rule 26(i) K(i) of Telangana Registration Rules, before
any deed of cancellation is admitted to registration, the
registering authority shall ensure that the parties to the
deed which is sought to be cancelled have consented for
cancellation and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right
to execute the cancellation deed to the petitioners. He
further submits that as per Circular Memo
No.G1/CAN/4028/2010 dated 31.03.2010 issued by the
C & IG (R & S), Hyderabad, no registering officer shall
register a deed of revocation-cum-cancellation of GPA in the
absence of express contract under Section 202 of Indian
Contract Act, 1972 and requested to allow the writ petition.
SK, J
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps
and Registration submits that the respondent No.4 has
executed Irrevocable Registered General Power of Attorney
in favour of petitioners on 06.08.2015 and the same was
simple General Power of Attorney and it can be revocable as
there is no mention about the interest or consideration paid
by the petitioners in favour of the respondent No.4 and
there is no bar for cancellation and moreover, no reasons
are mentioned for executing the document by stating that
as Irrevocable General Power of Attorney. In view of the
same, the said document is not within the meaning of
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney and the respondent
authorities have rightly permitted the respondent No.4 for
cancellation of the said Irrevocable General Power of
Attorney in Document No.30 of 2015 executed by the
respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners and requested
to dismiss the writ petition.
5. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this
Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are
SK, J
questioning the action of the respondents in revocation of
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed in their
favour by the respondent No.4 on 06.08.2015. In the said
document, there is no mention about the interest accorded
by the petitioners herein and the same was simple power of
attorney. Before revocation, the respondent No.4 has
issued a legal notice to petitioners on 19.12.2015 and in
response to the same, the petitioners have issued reply
notice on 07.01.2016. In the irrevocable General Power of
Attorney, in the legal notice or reply notice, there is no
mention about consideration of amount paid by the
petitioners to the respondent No.4. In the writ affidavit also,
the petitioners have not mentioned about the payment
details to the respondent No.4 in view of execution of
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney. But for the first time
after filing this writ petition, the petitioners have filed a
petition to receive the unregistered documents namely
agreement of sale dated 05.06.2015, receipt of
Rs.5,00,000/- and another receipt of Rs.85,00,000/-
without any official transactions and the same was not
SK, J
mentioned in the writ affidavit. Though the said
transactions are before revocation of Irrevocable General
Power of Attorney, the petitioners have not mentioned in
the reply notice issued by them in response to the legal
notice issued by the respondent No.4. In view of the same,
the said documents cannot be taken into account for
disposal of the present writ petition.
6. The Irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed
by the respondent No.4 can be revocable as it is not
coupled with interest as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in M.S.Ananthamurthy vs. J. Manjula1, wherein it was
held in para No.45 which is extracted as under;
"45.Further, a mere use of the word 'irrevocable' in a POA does not
make the POA irrevocable. If the POA is not coupled with interest, no
extraneous expression can make it irrevocable. At the same time, even
if there is no expression to the effect that the POA is irrevocable but
the reading of the document indicates that it is a POA coupled with
interest, it would be irrevocable. xxxxxxxx
The aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court
squarely apply to the instant case as mere use of the word
'irrevocable' in a Power of Attorney does not make the Power
2025 SCC OnLine SC 448
SK, J
of Attorney irrevocable and there is no mention about the
amounts received by the respondent No.4 before execution
of the said document.
7. In view of the same, the respondent No.4 can revoke
the General Power of Attorney executed in Document No.30
of 2015 dated 29.12.2015 and there are no valid grounds to
interfere with the impugned deed of revocation of
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed by the
respondent No.4 in the presence of witnesses. There is no
violation of the Registration Act and Rule 26(i) K(i) of the
Telangana Registration Rules is not applicable to the
instant case. In view of the same, there are no merits in the
writ petition and the same is liable to dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
SK, J
9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand dismissed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date:26.06.2025
sj
LR Copy to be marked.
