RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J. - (1.) The petitioners are the owners in possession of plots No.160, 161 & 162, measuring 242 Sq. Yards each, comprised in Khasra Nos.63//3/1/6, 63//3/1/5, 63//3/1/4, Khata Nos.245/321, 246/322 & 247/323, located at village Mohra, Hadbast No.188, Ambala Cantt., which were initially owned by respondents No.4 to 6. Respondents No.4 to 6 executed registered Power of Attorneys in favour of respondents No.7 to 9 in the office of Sub Registrar, Tatipur, Madhya Pradesh. Respondents No.7 to 9, as attorneys, sold the aforesaid plots to the petitioners by different sale deeds No.496, 501 & 655 dated 29.04.2005, 29.04.2005 and 06.05.2015, registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ambala Cantt. The Registrar, Ambala, vide impugned order dated 27.09.2013, cancelled the registration of the aforesaid sale deeds while exercising his powers under Section 68(2) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the ground that the power of attorneys, registered at Tatipur, Madhya Pradesh, are forged because there is no office of the Register/Sub Registrar at Tatipur, Madhya Pradesh. He also observed in the order that before passing the impugned order, public notices were also given on 07.09.2013, 08.09.2013 & 23.09.2013 in "Punjab Kesari".
(2.) The petitioners have challenged the competence of the Registrar to cancel the registered sale deeds in terms of Section 68(2) of the Act. It is contended that the Registrar does not have the power to cancel registration of the sale deed, the execution of which has not been denied and has already been registered by the Sub Registrar and in this regard, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in the case of Hussain Ali Shah vs. Sardar Ali Shah and others, AIR 1933 Lahore 786, a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Bharat High Court in the case of Nyadarsingh vs. Chensingh, 1955 AIR (Madhya Bharat) 205 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jodh Singh vs. Registrar (Deputy Commissioner), Ambala, 1999(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 441.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the sale deeds have been executed on the basis of power of attorneys which were allegedly registered in the office of Tatipur, Madhya Pradesh, where there is no such office of the Sub Registrar, therefore, the transaction is fraudulent and the fraud will always remain a fraud and the illegal document has to be declared null and void. However, no judgment to the contrary has been cited on the power of the Registrar, exercised under Section 68(2) of the Act for cancellation of the registered document. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record with their able assistance. ;