SHAJI P.CHALY,J. - (1.)This appeal is preferred by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition challenging the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 3.9.2010 in W.P.(C) No.37150/2009, filed by the first respondent, wherein respondents
(2.)and 3 herein are respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The judgement of the learned Single Judge ordered thus:
"22. The conclusions emerging from the above discussion may be summed up as follows: (i) The sub- registrar is legally obliged to reject and refuse to register a deed of cancellation of a sale unilaterally executed without the knowledge and consent of the other parties to the sale deed and without complying with Section 32A of the Registration Act, 1908. (ii) All sub-registrars of the State shall see that a deed of cancellation of sale is registered only if executed with mutual consent of all parties to the sale, complying with the provisions of the Act and Rules including Section 32A of the Registration Act. 23.

23. In the result, these two writ petitions are allowed and the registration of the deed of cancellation dated 1-8-2009 registered as document no. 2830/2009 of Uliyil Sub Registrar's Office produced as Ext. P3 in W.P. (C) No. 34367/2009 and the registration of the deed of cancellation dated 24-11-2009 registered as document no. 2099/2009 of Anchalummood Sub Registrar's Office produced as Ext. P2 in W.P. (C) No. 37150/2009 are hereby quashed. The respective sub-registrar shall cancel, strike off and remove the said deeds from the registers maintained by them in respect of the respective properties and the same shall not be included in the encumbrance certificates to be issued in respect of those properties. For completing the formalities, the 4 th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 34367/2009 and the 3 rd respondent in W.P. (C) No. 37150/2009 shall produce the cancellation deeds executed by them before the respective sub-registrar for cancelling the registration within two weeks from receipt of a communication from the sub-registrar directing production, which the sub-registrar shall issue within two weeks. However, the sub registrar shall not wait for such production for making appropriate changes in his register as directed above.

Before parting with the case, I suggest that the Government of Kerala would do well to introduce appropriate amendment to either the Act or the Rules, in line with Rule 26(k) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules referred to above, (see paragraph 19 supra) to give a statutory framework to the findings in this judgment. To enable the Government to consider the same, the Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Registration Department and the Inspector General of Registration, of the Government of Kerala. I sincerely hope that my above suggestion will not meet with the same fate, namely, discard to the waste bin, as my suggestion in Retnavally V Ambalapadu S.C.B. Ltd., 2005 (3) KLT 320, wherein also a suggestion was made to the Government in respect of notification of commencement of Section 4A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in the State of Kerala, which would have hugely benefitted the entire workforce in Kerala covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, without any corresponding financial burden on either the employers or the Government. In the meanwhile, the Inspector General of registration shall circulate a copy of this judgment with appropriate directions in accordance with this judgment, to all subregistrars of the State who shall implement the directions contained herein."
2. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed along with the connected writ petition viz., W.P.(C) No.34367/2009. The subject issue relates to unilateral cancellation of Ext.P1 sale deed No.2209/08 dated 28.10.2008 by registration of cancellation deed No.2099/09 dated 24.11.2009 of SRO, Anchalummood on the ground that, the writ petitioner has not paid the sale consideration and the property has not been given possession of to the petitioner. Learned Single Judge after elaborate survey of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and other relevant enactments and the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Himachalpradesh and Others v. Shivalik Agro Poly Products and others [(2004) 8 SCC 556], Kaliperumal v. Rajagopal and another [(2009)4 SCC 193], Muralidhar Aggarwal v. State of Utterpradesh [(1974)2 SCC 472], Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [AIR 1986 SC 1571], Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Saw Pipes Ltd. [(2003)5 SCC 705] and other judgements, in regard to the consequences of execution of sale deed, the contract entered into by and between the parties, the public policy involved in the registration of deed by and between parties, and the apparent adverse consequences in regard to the unilateral cancellation of sale deed, has arrived at the conclusion that the Sub Registrar is not vested with powers to cancel the sale deed unilaterally.
(3.)We have heard learned counsel for appellant, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent and perused the pleadings and documents on record.