The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a sub-registrar lacks the authority to invalidate a document that has already been registered. 

The decision was made by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum when he dismissed a petition filed by a businesswoman named Madhumati from Bagalkot. Madhumati had previously granted a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of her husband, Mahadevappa.

Madhumati, claiming a violation of the terms within the GPA, sought assistance from the local sub-registrar to officially record a document titled 'Cancellation of GPA'.

On February 10, 2023, the sub-registrar issued a statement refusing to register the 'Cancellation of GPA' document. The basis for this rejection was that the contested GPA involved a financial interest, and as such, the sub-registrar lacked the authority to record the cancellation of the deed. Additionally, the sub-registrar advised the applicant to seek the required legal remedy through the appropriate civil court.

The court cited the relevant sections of the Registration Act and various previous judgments of the high court in its decision.

Justice Magadum pointed out that when a GPA coupled with interest is registered, the person wishing to cancel that document has a practical legal remedy at their disposal. They can seek cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.

The court emphasized that the responsibility of a Sub-Registrar concludes once the document is registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Registration Act, 1908, does not contain any explicit provisions that grant the Registrar the authority to revoke such a registration. It is a well-established legal doctrine that the power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter.

The court also clarified that a deed of cancellation essentially equates to the act of rescinding the contract. In matters involving contracts, the term "rescission" is employed to signify cancellation.