Smt. Malipeddi lndira v. Secretariat, HYderabad'

Order

The Present writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to dcclare the deed of revocation document bearing No 2637 of 2009' dated 05.06.2009 (issued unilaterally) as null and void and to consequently declare the Sale Deed bearing No'2638 of 2009' daled 05.06.2009 as illegal and invalid and to set aside the proceedings of the MRO, dated O6 04'2O 1 1'

2. Heard Sri Veduia Srinivas' learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Governmen t Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents Perused the recorci'

3. The subject malter of this writ petition pertains to i.e., agriculture land admeasuring Ac 14 10 Gts propertY situated 1n Sy.No.4 of Dharmaram Village, ThimmaiPallY Ranga ReddY District, Gram PanchaYat, Keesara Mandal' presently Malkajgiri/ Medchal District (hereinafter referred as "subject ProPertY").

4. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that their father by name late Seetharam Reddy' had purchased the schedule property by way of registered of 1988, dated 27'06 1988' sale deed bearing No'4609 that her father along with PetiLioner's further case is 2 O.S.No.383 respondent No.3, who is younger brother of the petitioncr, executed a Gift Settlement Deed vide document bearing No.5615 of 2O05, dated 08.O9.2005, in favour of the petilioner, thereby bestowing propert5r in her name. Thereafter on 24.O2.2006, mutation proceedings were issucd by the MRO, Keesara in favour of the petitioner and title deed and pattadar passbook were also issued to that effect. Thereafter, petrtioner's father and respondent No.3 filecl of 2006 before the IV Additional Senior Civit Judge (Fast Track Courr), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking cancellation of the aforementioned Gift Settlement Deed, on the ground that it was allegedly executed fraudulently and 1t is not valid. The petitioner has hled a detailed written statement to contest the suit, zrnd during the pendency of the said suit, petiti.ner,s father died intestate on 07 .1O.2OO7 and the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track court) Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, dismissed the said suit for non_prosecution by an order dated O9.O2.2O1O, and the said order has become final and is binding on the parties. respondent No.2 Gift Settiement

5. Thereafter, respondent No.3 approached and executed a Deed of Rer,,ocation of the Deed dated Og.O9.2005 vide Document dated 05.06.20O9, which was registered No.2637 of 2OO9 J uniiaterally arrd the respondent No'3 executed a sale deed on the very same day alienating an extent ot Ac'7'O5 gts out of proceedings on totalextentofAc.14.l0gts,infavourofrespondentNos.4to 6, registering it with respondent No 2 vide document No'2638 to 6 aPPlied for of 2OO9. Thereafter, respondent Nos'4 mutation, and respondent No 7 issued to an extent of 06.04.2011 recognizing them as owners Lc.2.l5 gts. each and patta books and title documents for respective portions were also issued Thereafter' on 30.03.20 13, Petltloner sold an extent of Ac'4 10 Gts out of the total extent of Ac'14'10 Gts to one R'Venkat Reddy and R.Krishna Reddy vid'e registered sale deed dated 30'03'2013 bearing document No'4435 of 2013, registered with No.2 and then oo 26.11.20 i5, the Petitioner encumbrance certihcate from the office of the obtained an respondent No.2 and at that point of time' petitioner came to respondent knowthatanextentofAc.T.05gts.wasrecordedinthe namesofrespondentNos4to6'asperrespondentNo2 records and when petitioner questioned respondent Nos'2 and 7, it was revealed that the deed of revocation of the Gift Deed and the subsequent entries in the encumbrance certi{icates were made foilowing the revocation of the Gift Deed and the subsequent Sale Deed to respondent Nos 4 to 6' In the month of November, 2O 15, the Petitloner came to know about sairl facts when she got E'C' from the office of respondent No'2' i 4 Thereafter, petitioner fiied the present u,rit petition. This Court by an order dated 1I.11.2016 directed both the parties to maintain status-quo over the property and also directed sub-registrar not to carryout any further registration in respect of thc property and ordereci notice to respondent Nos.4 to 6. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and no counter has filed. In proof of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed proof of service . Thereafter, respondent No.3 died on 2T.os.2or9 and copy of death certificate was filed and later respondent No.g was brought on record as the legal representative of respondent No.3 vide order dated 21.11.2024 in I.A.No.2 of

2024. Commissioner and

06. On the other hand, counter has been hled on behalf respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that it is true that the document No.2637 of 2OO9 is a deed of canccllation of the earlier gift settlement deed and it was unilaterally executed by respondent No.3, r.e ., Ganguia Dharma Reddy. The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana, initially ordered "Not to registcr unilateral cancellations" of many documents, including Gifts and Gift Settlements vide Memo No.Gi/1OS47 /2OO8, dated 25.08.2OO8. However the said order was revoked by Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps Department vide Memo Registration and No.G1/ 70547 /2OO9, dated, 5

30.04.2009, and the orders issued through Memo No.G1/ 70547 l2OO8, d'ated l8'O7'2008 were restored to be in operation. In the said memo dated 18'07'2008' the unilateral execuLion ol revocation of Gift settlement deeds or Gift deeds was not included, thereby allowed the unilateral cancellation of Settlement Deeds ln view of the same' the present Settlement Deed No'5615 of 2005 is cancelled unilateraliy by way of document No'2637 of 2OO9 ' As such' the cancellation does not violate any provisions that existed in the De partment

07. Further, petitioner has ftled rejoinder afhdavit' denying the averments made in counter of respondent No'2 wherein it is stated that reliance placed respondent No'2 on the Memo dated 18'07'20O8 is wholly misplaced' as the memo nowhere states that the unilateral cancellation of Gift or SeLtlement Deeds is permitted' It is further submitted that Rule 26(k) clarifies that it is not applicable to certain agreements and on a plain reading of lhe said memo' it clearly reveals that under Rule 26(k)' which came into force on shall ensure that at the time 29 .ll .2006, the registering ofhce of presentation for registration of a cancellation deed previously registered deed, it must be executed by all executants and claimant parties to the previousiy registered deed. I !l I I 6 SUBMIssIONS:

8. l,earned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the list of dates and events would submit that subsequent to the execution of the gift settlement dced in favour of the petitioner. petiLioner,s father and respondent No.3 hled O.S.No.3g3 of 2O06 before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judgc (Fast Tract Court) in Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking the cancellation of the aforementioned gift settlement deed on the grounds that it was allegedly fraudurent anci invarid, citing the father,s old age and respondent No.3 purported unsound mind and suit was contested, during the pendency of proceedings, petitioner's father passed away intestate and respondent No.5 and another brother, Gangula Krishna Reddy, were brought on record in the suit. Thereafter, the suit was ciismissed for lack of evidence and thus Lhe order of dismissal has become Iinal and binding. Thereafter, on O5.06.2O09 respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 and executed a Deed of Revocation of the Gift Settlement vide Document No.2637 of 20O9, which was got registered unilateraily and respondent No.3 executed a Sale Deed alienating about Ac.7.O5 acres out of the 14.10 acres in favour of respondent Nos4 to 6, registering it with respondent No.2 vide document No.263g of 2009. Thereafter, respondent Nos.4 to 6 applied for mutation, tl{ 5"Ro.,a.nt No.7 issued proceeding recognizing th311 ." 1 soid Ac.4.10 Gts out owners of Ac.2. 15 Gts , each ConsequentlY, theY were issued for their respectlve patta passbooks and title documents portions. On 30.03 2013 the petitioner a sale deed dated of the total Ac. 14.10 Gts' Under 3O.O3.2O13, document No'4435 of 2023 ' registered with respondent No.2 and ot 26'11'2015' the petitioner obtained an encumbrance certiticate for the remaining 1O acres and was shocked to discover that Ac'7'05 Gts were recorded in the names of respondent Nos'4 to 6 in the respondent No'2 records. UPon enquiry, it was revealed that the deed of revocation of the gift deed and subsequent sale deed to respondent Nos4 to 6 were the cause and the petitioner came toknowabou|thecancellationofthegiftdeedandsaleof part of the property by Mr'G'Darma Reddy only on

21.12.2OirS,pursuanttowhichthepresentwritpetitionis fi1ed. g . Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would further submit that resPondent No.2 cannot unilaterallY entertain the cancellation of gift settlement deeds and courts have consistently held that the unilateral cancellation of documentsisinvalidandillegalandtlresaidrulingsalso apply to documents including gift settlement deeds' He would further submit that in case of cancellation of gift deeds or any document, notice has to be given in terms of Rule 26(i)(k) of . l 8 the Registration Rules, 190g and Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules reads as under which is extracted for facility of reference "26(r(k) That the CanceUahon Deed of the previouslg regstered deed of conuega nce on sale of immouable propert! ts executed bg both the e. y.ecuting and the claiming potlies thereof unless such Cancel lolton Deed is executcd under Lhc orders of a competent Court or under Rule 245.' 10. Learned Senior Ccunsel would further submit that petitioner had a valid and absolute title on the property as the gift cleed Og.09.2OOS was executed by the petitioner,s father and her brother i.e., respondent No.3 in her favour and the said gift deed was properly cxecuted and signed by all the parties and said the document was registered bearing No.561S of 2005. Consequently. the title to the property was duly transferred to the petitioner. He would lurther submit that even by virtue of dismissal of O.S No.3g3 ol. 2006 and with the absence of evidence to substantiate any claims against the petitioner and that the petitioner had sold an extent of Ac.4.10 Gts orrt of the total extent of Ac.14.10 Gts in favaour of R.Venkat Reddy and R.Krishna Recldy under Sale Deed dated 30.03.2013, by document bearing No.4435 of 2013 is fully legal and valid. 1 1 . Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that unilateral cancellation of Deed of Conveyance and registration thereof is ilegal and void and is in violation of Section 726 ol Transfer of property Act, 1gg2 and settled Pringfles of law. Section 126 of Transfer of property Act 9 provides for certain circumstances under which a gift may be suspended, cancelled or revoked' For reference Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is extracted as under: "...126' When gifr may be suspended or reuoked: The donor oia aint *og 'g'"" 't.hot -on the happenitg of ang spectfied euent tt'thich d-oes not atp"na i" 1ni "*.lti of the don-or a gif , sha'tl be but a gifr which th'e parties suspended o' "ior"ai ogie shall be reuocable uhollg or in parl at the mere wetl of the donor is uoid uthollg or in par-t' as tlte case mag be' e {i7 mog also be reuoked in ang of the cases (saue *iit o' 1ott"" oJ consid'eration) tn which' if it utere a controct, it might be rescinded- Soue as aloresoicl o gifi connol be reuoked, tnit section be deemed to Nothing containia ii olfected the ights of transkrees for considerotiort without ttottce " '"

12. Learned Senior Counsel wouid further submit that the as per the provisions of Section 126 of the TPA' a gift cannot be revoked except in the circumstances set out above and is support of his submissions relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supre Court in the case of K' Baka Krishndn held that Section 126 Vs. K.Kamalam,l wherein 1t was prohibits revocation of a validlY circumstances mentioned therein' deed dated 08.09 2005 that in the Present case, the gift having been validly executed' its revocation must be in accordance with Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act' 1882 and the circumstances alleged in the Deed of Revocation executed gift excePt in He would further submit dated05.o6.2oogdonotqualifyunderthesaidprovisionsas '(zoo+) t scc ss t I l0 the Gift Deed does not provide for any specihc event upon which the Gift Deed can be cancelled/revoked and even otherwise as per the Gift Deed dated 0g.09.2005, neither the petitioner's father nor petitioner,s brother (respondent No.3) have not reserved any right to suspend or revoke the gift deed. However, respondent No.3 alone had unilaterally executed a Deed or Revocation dared 05.06.2009, whereby the Gift Deed dated 08.09.20O5 executed in favour of the petitioner earlier was canceiled and revoked ancl said Deed of Revocation is not signed by the petitioner and ye t came to be registered as Doc No.2637 of 2OO9 with SRO, Keesara. In view of the settled legal position, the gift settlement in favour of the petitioner ought not have been revoked or suspended by respondent No.3 unilaterally, without the consent of the petitioner, which are illegal and violative of Section 126 of TpA.

13. Learned Senior Counsel would further refer to the Rule 26(i)(k) of the Registration Rules, 19o8, which stipurates that a Cancellation Deed for a previously registered deed must be executed by both the execuLing and claiming parties unless it is executed under the directron of a Court. The rule is extracted for reference: "26(i)(k) That the Cctncellation Deed of the preuiously registered deed of conL,eAance on sale of immoual.e properly is exeruled brt bolh th" axecuting ond llt" cktiming parties thereof unless such CancellcLtion Deed is executed under the order.s of a competent Coutl or under Rule 243." 1l

14. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court had time and again held that Rule 26(i)(k) covers not only the sale deeds but also transactions of conveyance which obviously would take in its fold the transactions of gift also. Therefore, unilateral cancellation of the gift deed and registration thereof violates Rule 26(i)(k) of the Telangana Registration Ruies and must be declared to be void.

15. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments: i) t. Dist' Registrar' In KaPugnti Srtko,kula,rr.2the relevant paragraph No 6 is extracted as under: "....The registration of deed of cancellation presentea bg one of the execlltants of tle gtff deed arud,not cinsented bg the done, is controry to lcttu ln Thota Ganga Laxmi u. Gout. Of Andlva Pradesh (Ciuit Appea| t'to.5lr o7 zooz, doted 13.o7.201o), the supreme Court lrcld that uhen a ualid transkr has been brought into eistence, tn ctccord.ance tt''ith taw, it connot be set at naught, at the itstance oJ the one ol the parties to it '" ii) In Kolli Raiesh Choudary a. Sto,te o.f Andhra Pradeshs, it was held that deaiing with the aspect whether registration of deed of cancellation unilaterally is violative of principles of natural justice and aiso contrary to the Rule 22012 SCC Online AP6l r2019 scc Online AP I8 I i t2 ..: ...i 26(iXk), learnr:d Senior Counsel referred to relevant paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and drawn attention of this Court to the Hon'ble Court relavant findings which are extracted for facility . . There cannot be a unilaterctL canceLlatiort of regtstered document ond that a cance cttion deed cancelling a registered document can Lte re@stered onlg after the sqme is cancelled_ bg a competent Ciutl Court, afier notice to the parties concented. In the absence of ang declaratiot.L bA a conpetent Court or notice to parties, the execution of cleed. of cancellation qs taell as its registratiort are uhoug uoid and nonest. . Wrcn the cancellation deed or reuoccttion deed unilaterallA executed is null and uoid and that uthen such trarLsaction s meaningless, it is JLsf and fair to allou the wit petition leauitlg it operl to the exeantan.tts of the carlcellation cleed or revoctttion deed to seek the common latu remecltl bg approaching the Ciuil Coun. iii) In Saslkala u. The Revenue Divisionat Offt.cer, cum Sub Collector, Deuakottain d.nd. Ors.4, the Madras High Court held thaL thc illustrations in Section 726 of the TPA clarify that the revocation should be with the assent of the donee and it shall not be at the will of donor as a gift revocable at the mere will of lhe donor is void. It was further held that if the donor by himself reserves a right to revoke Lhe gift at his will without the assent by donee, the gift itself is void and the Sub-registerar cannot decide 42022 sCC Online Mad 4343 t3 whether there was consent for revocation outside the document. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that Registering Authority has no power to accept the deed of cancellation to nullify the deed of Eonveyance made earlier and in support of his submissions refers to the reievant paragraph Nos.55 to 59. ia) In Thota Ganga Laxmi us. Gouernment of Andhra Pradeshs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: '3.A uit petition wos filed seeking declaration that the cancellatioft deed is itlegal and that has been disposed of bg tlrc inpugned ludgnent hoLding that the appettants should approach the ctuiL Court- 4.1ft our opinion, there wqs no need for the appetlqftts to approach the ciuil court as the said cancellotton deed dated 04.08.2005 as wetL as registration of the same was whollg uoid and non est and can be ignored altogether..."

16. Learned Senior Counsel further relied on the foilowing judgments a) b) c) B.Ifrrmala Vs. The District Registrar (West), Rangareddg District and Ors. I.A.No.7 of 2079 in W.P.No.28764 of 2OO8. K. Srinioo.s Vijag Kwnar Vs, The State oJ Telangana and Ors.6 Cherukuthota Ro,ghunoth Ys. The Commissioner and Inspector General oJ Registration and Sto;mps A.P. and Ors- 7 d) D.Mohan o. Sub Registrars. '(2012 (r) ALD eo(sc) 6Man:r/TLl1988/2022 7 MaJ|u /TL /2459 /2022 I t4 ),7. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon a recent order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33787 of 2Ol2 order dated O2.Og.2024, which was allorved.

18. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further submits that even the circular is not binding on the petitioncr, and the aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court would support the case of the petitioner ANALYSIS AND CONCUSIONS:

79. It is pertinent to note that the facts of this case are similar to the facts narrated in W.p.No. 337g7 of 2012, wherein the proceedings of the Sub Registrar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy district, in registering lhe Deed of Revocation of the Gift Settlement Deed on 23.0g.2012 vide document No.862S of 2Ol2 was questioned as iilegal and one without jurisdiction.

20. The Division Bench of this Court in W.p.No.337g7 of 2OI2, vide order dated O2.O9.2O24, allowed. the said writ petition in which relevant para Nos.7 to 9 are extracted as under:

7. Admittedtg, the Gtjl Deed uhich taas executed tn Jauour of the petitioner has been unilateralht reuoked bA the respondent No.4 on 23.0g.2012. Th,.- pe1i1iory.. 82012 SCC Online Mad 1964 rt, : l I I I I I i I I l i I t5 is not a part| to the aforesaid Deed of Reuocation' Rute 26(i)(k) of Rules reads as under: "26(i)(k) That the Concellation Deed of the preuiously registered deed of conueAance on sale of immouabLe propertA is executed bg both the executing and tle claiming parties thereof unless such Cancellation Deed is executed under the orders of a cotnpetent Court or under RuLe 243. 8. The aforesaid euentualities under Rule .26(i)(K) of the Rules haue not been fulfilted in the instant case' Therefore, the cancellation of Gifi Settlement Deed ls in contrauention oJ Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules and the same cannot be sustatned in the eAe oJ lctu' It is accordinglg quashed- 9. In the result, the LUit petition is ctl[owed "

21. In the case on the hand, the cancellation of the deed, executed by respondent No 3 on 05 06 2009 vide document bearing No 2637 of 2009, has been admitte dly executed only by the donor/ settlor, who is Party No' i in the original Gift Settlement Deed executed by respondent No'3 and the petitioner's father on 08.09'2005 Petitioner is not a party to the said document. Respondent No'3 has unilaterally executed the cancellation of the Gift Settlement Deed, which has been registered by respondent No'2 based on the interpretation of the orders issued by Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Department vide Memo No'Gl/ lO54 l2OOg' dated 30 O4 20O9' and the orders issued through Memo No'G 1 I 10547 l2OO8' dated 18.07.2008. The. said memo's are in contravention to the Provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and against the rule of law laid down by the decisions of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, as mentioned above' I i t6 1t limited Reconstruction

22. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in Asset Company (India) S. P. Velayuthamand order of Registrar v. otherse observed that writ against the registering a document i.e., failure to perform its statutory duty is maintainable and also explained the applicability of remedy by way of filing a civ suit and that by invocation of writ jurisdiction vis_d_vis a document/sale deed. Relevant paragraph Nos.53 to 59 are extracted for reference: "xerution of lh_e document. btl the executant sqning or offi-ring " ....53. Aclually. the registration of a do,_umenr con)priscs ol lhrce essential steps omong otl,.r". fn"g ir", (i) his lcfi hand thumb intpression; lii) presentitg the doalment for regislration and qdmittinq to the r eg is t e ri ng a ut h o ri t A t he ex e &t ti o n"of s '- - i v,rPr rr ; ; ;; ;;; ;," ; ;';" " ": " (iii) the act of registration of the document. 54. In cases tuhere a suit for titLe is ftled, wiltt or wlthout the rehef of declorotion that the reoisit rea aoimeni ir rri ir)"rita, u)har gets cholleng"d, is a combination. of a the "yrr."rii ,i)."2teps tn t he o":,..:::!,.:,i!7,n and.ryotsiay1 rn" j,,tff ti.tr|o)"e"oia tn .. -_tcyn ,rug oe cnoLLenged tn a.,suit for _declaration that the regtstered document rc nu and uoid. either in the d grii,ri'i;*'i;","r..rron dtd not haue e ualid title to D 1o,na in' t'i. io.i,',i"i' -i"'ff" r:; ":rrn:::.t:;ff: ::::"?#',7:: '*ir""if,irr".a the ground that the sionafire. of thi executin, froud. coercion, etc. The-seconct si"p o1 pn"":nlolroi f,j ,ii,oo"u^.n, qnd admittins the erecution of th. ""k;, ;;'iiii"''ol .'iJ.,i"rn.o ., tle uery same grounds hereinaboue ,;;;.;:;;;ZZ;:,;;;r. r, ,n ::: :! of t he ofo resat d t h,.; ;t. p;" ;;"" :',' i !,i2,,,,,,, o I i::, 2:: ,r<y sL/r^e et rne uery root of creation. of the document. A challenge " ,:-,.!::.?y ?-..,-ti?.: ,t ? d6cument. is o cho enge b its uery DNA 1i1-?:y deJect or i\esatitg on the execution, i, ""'is"riit in no,r,". t nere1ore, such o chqllenoe bg.its ue.ry n^"trr., iolio if, mod" onlg before the ciuil court and iertainlg not Eelore t h.e in, .olu'n"' 5,5 The third step, namelA, th.e.-act of registration, is something that rhe resistein.s authoritg is ca ed. "i,""ii t,r.'liZi-rriir..,*ou. ,,r" executont of the doc.Ltment and the o"r;;"-';;;:;; u"na., ttr" document (claimant) are the onlA ""r"i, i"r"U"J"','r'7nJ,nu, ,u_ steps, the regtsteing offi.cer is ttti actor in th;-;;i;'"r*,7lrrn 1-^ Og - ' (2022)8.scc 210 t7 -partA the thlrd step lrhich is uhoug in the dotnain of tlle registering "in"irg, trc-mag also haue a role to plda in tle second step uhen a is preiented for registration and the execution thereof is i"i^"i admitted. The role tltnt is aisigned to the Registrar in the second step is that of ueif.cation of the identity of the person presenting the docu ment for regtslralton. 56. Thus, tte first ttuo steps iL tlLe process oJ registration are substantiol in ndture, with the porties to the document plaging the role of the lead qctors and the registering authoitg playing o guest role ii the second- step. The third step his procedunzl in nature tuhere tlrc registeing authoritg is the lectd actor' 57. In sutts for declaration oJ title and'/ or suits for declaration that a registered document is null anci uoid' all the aJoresaid tllree steps the entire process of execution and registration come ,r:hi.h "o^pite questions the uery exeantion of a under chillenge. a If a cTocurnent or ihe nght and titte of a person to exealte a doculnent and present it for iegistration, his reme(1A witl onty be to go to the civil court. Bui where a patlg questions ontg the faiture of the in the course of registering authoity to pei|orm nii statutory ti" tnirait"p, it cairuot be said thclt the juisdiction of tlrc High Courl und.er ArTicle 226 stands completelg ousted' Thts is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of b the High Court is to ensure tltat statutory attlurities perfonn their duties within the bounds of lana' 58. It must be noted that ttthen a High Court' in exercise of its ii;"ai"rion under Article 226 finds thqt there uds utter faiLure on 'ti part of tLLe registeing autioritg to stick.to the m.andate of latu' tli'ciurt"^.r.tc iqncels-the act oJ registration' but does not decLare tie uery exeantion of the dos)ment to be null and uoid' A declarcrtion that a iocument ts nut[ and uotd, is exclusiuety wtthin the domain of ttrc ciuit court, but it does not mean that the High Court connot examine the questton u'thether or not the registeiftg authoritA performed his itatutory duties in the manner prescribed bg lau' 59. It is wetl settled that if somethittg ts required bg laut to be done manner and in d a pqrtianlar manner, it sholl be d-one onlg in .thot not otircnuise. Examining Lullether the registering authoitg dirl something in the manner required by latu or othelutise' is certoinlA Houteuer' u)ithin tie juisdiction oJ the Htgh Court under Article^226 it is need[ess to saA that tle High Courls mag refuse to exerctse linsai"tion in cases-uthere the uiiations of procedure on the patt of 'ii,"igitt"nng autnitV are not gross or the do not shock the cinscieie of thi Court Lack of juisdiction is comptetely different from a refitsat to exercise jurisdiction' .uio-la1ions -duties . 23 In view of the above precedentiai guidance in the decision of the Supreme court and upon hearing the submissions made by the respective learned counsels and for the foregoing reasons, the Sub-Registrar cannot register the Deed of Cancellation unless it is executed by both parties or 18 under the orders of a competent court, or in accordance .u,ith Rule 243 of the Rules. The aforesaid eventualities under Rule 26(l{&.) of the Rules have not been fulfilled in the instant case, and that any contravention of Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules cannot be sustained in the eye of the law.

24. The Registering Authority have failed to perlorm their statutory duties while registering tl_re documents in question and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 hnds that there u.as utter failure on the part of registering authorit5r to stick to the mandate of law. This Court deems it appropriate to cancel the Act of the registration of the document bearing No.2637 of 2OO9 clated O5.06.2O09 whereby earlier gift settlement deed dated 08.09.2OO5 bearing No.5615 of 2005 was cancelled Accordingly, the said deed of cancellation / deed of revocation document bearing No.2637 of 2OO9, dated 05.O6.2009 is declared as null and void and that it is of no effect. As a sequel to the said finding that the cancerration deed or revocation deed is null and void and in view of the settled legal position that no one can convey a better title than what he/she has, the subsequent sale deed dated 05.06.2009 i.e., document bearing No.263g of 2OO9 in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 is also not valid and same is set aside and consequentially proceedings dated 06.ll.2Of 1 issued by ,_.lPord.rlt No.7 is also set asicle. Further, it is left open to j I I I I I I i I i l i i I I l9 the parties to the above documents to seek the common law remedy by approaching the civil Court

25. With this observations, the writ petition stands ALLOWED. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there sha11 be no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR hMSECTIUN OFFICER To One fair copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Keesara, tvlalkajgiri / tt/edchal District, Telangana. 3. The T.ahsildar, Keesara ltrlandal, tValkajgiri / Medchal District, Telangana. 4. 11 L.R. Copies. 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies ?* SA GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 ORDER WP.No.39006 of 2010 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ( e.( la 6 \ r,L S14 'c t- ._) i) 2 5 AUE 206 ,t/ D I