Mr.Mohammed Zabi-Ul-Hassan v. State Of Telangana

6. Smt. Yasmeen Banu, Wo.Late lvohd. Rafiul Hassan, Aged about 58 years, Occ Household, Presently residing at H.No.19-54/23, Near Krishnaveni Talen School, Narsapur, fVandal and Taluk, Medak Dist. Telangana State.

7. [Vlohammed Zaki Ul Hassan, S/o.Late Mohd. Rafi Ul Hassan, aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. H.No.10-3-28212lNBl2, SB Colony, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad-500028. R7 is impleaded as per C.O., dt.12-09-2025 in l.A.No.1 of 2025. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in receiving and €ffiry.-::ryrr :.:._,#. ,. ;/, ,/' - registering the canceilation of Gift Deed bearing Nos ('t ) 2379t2015 dated- 25.05.2O15 (2) 238012015 dated-25.05.2015 and (3 2381t2015, dared- 25.05.2015, inter alia, by cancelling the Gift Deeds be rring Nos.(1) 256106, dated- 18.01 .20C6 in respect of property bearing No.12-2 7B3l1lA admeasuring 502 sq.yds., situated at Rethibowli, Hyderabad, (2) 45O2lOt\, dated-04..1 .l .2008 in respect of property bearing [Municipal No. 12-2-78311 . admeasuring 1g5.33 sq.yds. situated at Rethibowli, Hyderabad, and (3) 252Sl2OAg, dated-3O.07.2009 in respect of House bearing Municipal No.12-2-752lAl1lAle admeasuring 220.00 sq.yds., situatec at Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad, unilaterally at the instance of 6th Respondent, is being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdictiorr u nco nstitutiona I and against to the provisions of the Stamps and Registration Act and Rules made thereunder and consequently declare the cancellation Deeds bearing Nos.(1) 237912015 dated'25.05 201s. (2)23801201 5 dated-25.05 2()15 and (3)2381t2O15 dated-25.05.201 5 as void. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP NO: 27375 OF 2015) Petition urder Section 15'l cPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coud may be pleased to direct the Respcrndents not to given effect to the Gift cancr:llation Deeds bearing document Nos2379/2015 dt:25.05.2015, No.23B0l2015, dt:25.05.2015 and No.23B1l20'1 5, dt:25.05.2015, in any manner, pending lisposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.M.SUBHANI S M Counsel forthe Respondents No.1to5 : Gp FOR REVENUE: Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : M/s.BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATIES Counsel for the Respondents No.7 : SRI S.M.SUBHANI The Court made the following: ORDER ,,x. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITI0N No.21246 of 2015 ORDER: Heard Sri SLrbhani S.M. lcarned counsel for the petiiioner, Smt. T.Padrnaja, Iearned counsel for respondent No.6, Sri Shaik Salman Slianau,az. learned counsel for respondent No.7 and learneci Assistant Government Pleader f'or Revenr-re appearing on behalf of official respondents

2. Ihis \\'rit Petition is ilied chalienging the action ol the 4'h respondent in receiving aild registering the cancellation ol '.he gifi settientent deed bearing docurnent Nos.2379 of 2015, 238C cri 2015 and 2l8l of 201 5 dated 25.05.2015, unilaterally 'wiihout fbllorving the due irror:ess of iau' l. The conter.rtion oi the petitioner is that the property be:iring municipai uumberl2-2-lE3lllA adrneasurir.rg 502 sq.vds situated at Rethiborvli" illdcrabad was purchased by the pelitioner's father. Dur-iiis hi-s lit-e tirne, the petitioner's father gifted the properly in lavour of the 6'h respondent, who is the mother of the petitior.rer under a registered gift deed 2 GPt(,,_l ,\ P.No.212.15 of 201; Subsequentl-ol, the 6th respondent, on her own r.r-r li and out ol love and affection, executed a registered ;.: it rieed on I8.01.2006 jointly in favour of the petitioner ar; rveil as 7th respondent and delivcred possession oithe said r:,i ilpertv 4 Similarly, the 6th respondent aiso executcc another gift deed joinriy in favour of the petitioner and 7'l' resoondent with regard to the properly bearing Municipal No. l2-2-78311, admeasuring 185.33 sq.yds or equivaient to i5.!".' i s.i.meters, situated at Rethi Bowli, Hyderabari. 1'he 6'i'resp,-- ident iurther executed another gift settlerrient deed jointl.v.. ir: livour of the petitioner and his brother with regard to proper',) situated ar Gudimalkapur, Mehdipatnarr N4unicipa,i heirrir,s No.12-2- 7521Nl/tV6 which is registered otl 3o'07'2';')ti TherebY contends that the petitioner and 7 responde:'i' lo the best knowledge of all family members, particularl., sisters and brothersin-lawd are in absolute possession and erijoyment of the said properlies. The petitioner lurther r:oirtends that pursuant 1o the execution ofthe gift deeds in theil lavour. lheir 3 (i t)K,,t lV P No 2)2]t) of 2()1s names are also mutated in the municipal records and they are regularly paying a1[ statutory municipal taxes

5. At this juncture, after the denrisc ol' the petitioner's father, the petitioncr had taken rcsporrsibility as an eldcr brother of last two urtrnarricd sisters and pcrforme<j thcir marriages. 1'he petitioner contcnds that his sistcrs rcceived independent houses in addition to their sharcs given at thc time of marriages. l'hereby contends that titr all the practical purposcs, the sisters received more than their respectivc shares of the property as per the lslantic Law. As sucli contends that they have nothing to do with the said propcrties.

6. Pctitioner contends that taking advantage of the situation, his sisl.ers, wit[r whonr the (r'r'rcspondcnt is rcsiding, made her to cancel the subject Gili Dccd at a bclated stage for the obvious reasons.

7. The petitioner further contonds that on 24.06.2015, he received a legal notice infornting about the canccllation ol'the subject Gift Deeds by the 6'h respondent and the said legal t] 4 "1::iE $:.::- \ (ll'l\,1 '! I'\,) 21246 ol:lOl5 K notice issue d to the petitioner and to the 7'r' resp,,rrdent, who is also thc absolute owner and possessor of thc plrncrtics under gifl settlenrent deed cxecuted by the 6th respor,.lcnt. I)ursuant to the legal notice, he vcrified the matter anit obtained thc citpics of the canccllation decd dated 25.05.2{t I... r\ggricved by the seme, he approached this Coun

8. The 4'h respondcnt/Sub-Registrar filc,-l llrc colurtcl staling that at the time of'registration ot' thc rrili scttlenrenl deeds, t re signatures ol the donees were not Lakcn in the records laintained by the 5'r' respondent. 'l'hc +rrr rc-spondcnt conlends that there is provision in Articlc 491i.i 6; SchedLrle 1A of t,re Indian Stamp Act lirr Rcvocatiorr ,rl'Sctllernclrt Dceds. As per the provision, the canceliur ions of thc previously registered gift scttlcment decds r^ir,r',-. r'csistered The 4'r' r'esl)ondent further contends that thcrc i:. no crnbargo on the urrilateral cancellation of Sale Deeds un<l,.'r' I(ulc 26 (k) (i) which came into force w.e.l' 29.11.20(l(r and other documerrts are not covered in the rulcs. 'l'ltcrelble. tlrc I i J ,-;pli.J \\ t,\o 2l2rl) o! 2l)15 allegation of the 4th respondent not having anr- authority registering the cancellation deeds is incorrect'

9. On the other hand, learned counsel fbr (rrh respondent contends that on accoullt ol misutrdclstandings, the 6'r' respondent cancellcd the afbresaid i Gifi l)ceds' After intervention of tamity clders and colllmoll tiicnds and well wishers, all the n.risunderstandings are settlcd' As such the 6'h respondent has absolutely no objection to retain the Gift Decds in favour of the pctitiollcr alld 7'r' respondeul'

10. The counsel for the petitioner relies trporl the iudgmer-rt reported in the matter t>f Ediga Chmdrasckhur Gowd Vs' Srarc of Andhra Prudesht rvherein the Hon'ble Suprcme Court held that the proccdure plescribed under tlrc I{ule 26 (i) (k) (i) of the Rulcs franled under the Registration Act 1t.l cover the agreement of salc/executor)' contracts or agreemcnt for sale cum GPA the procedure stipulated under thc Act ueed to be followed. | 2Ol7 (4) ALD 12 6 GPi\.J ,\ P i.o 212.16 ot 2015

10. Learned counsel furlher relies uporr the various .jLrdgmerts passed hv the Hon'ble Supreme ('orir t in the matter of Tlrota Gongo Lukshmi und another Vs. (royerntncnt of Anilhra Prodeslr whcrein the IIon'ble Strnlr:r rc (lor-rrt held that a part)'. rvho u ants to cancel an executccl si lr-' dccd has to nccessarih'file a civil suit for its reconveyancc. I'lre court also helcl that when a sale deed is cancelled b_v a cc,r lpcterrt f)ourt, the canc,:llation dcecl can be registered and that t.ro afier notice to tirc partics conccrncd. Following the judgnrcr:i pusscd by the I lon'ble Suprer.ne I ourt in Thota Gtnga Luksltnti (strpra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has also considcr',..r1 thc issue in Writ Petition No.1i939 of 2022 dated 24.10.2(),I and Second Appeal No.2 I 6 o1'2020 dated I 3.04.2022. I l. llaving regard to the contentions adllrccci bv the respecli\e parlies, Rule 26(i) (k) (i) of the Rulc:i llanrccl under the Registratiorl Act 1908 reads as under: " (il 'l'he rcgistcring o/Jicer shall ensurc ut /ltr, tintt: tl' prepurution.fir ragislralion of cuncellation deetls o,' tr, !r'it)uslv regislered dcetl o/ (onvevances on sale beforc, hirt tlrut 'utlt '2oto l5 s(.c to7 7 i)l,H,.t iV P No ,I 2.1ar.l rOl S canccllalion deeds ara executetl hy all tha executants and (luinrunl pot lie.r lo lhe prat'iouslt registered contel,artcc ort .sule und thal such concellalion deed is uccompanied h.l, u tlecluration shov,ing nolural (o sert or ortlers 01'a (ontpetenl Civil Or High Ooun or State or ('enlral Got'erntnent unnulling lhe trdnsoclion conloincd in tht preriousi.t regi.sterLd deed o/ t Otlr'CydnL'L' (tn sdle -- I>ntvidcd that the ragislaring ql/it'cr shall tlispen.v l'ith tlk axcculion oJ cuncallation clud: b.y exccutu ls ond cluinuni purlies lo thc previously registeratl cleeds of'cttnvetances on sult he/ire him il the cancellatitLrr dutl i.s txettrtal h.v u ( ivii .luLlgt or o govern ?(nl officcr L'ottpcl(n! lo ere(ult co|ernntar ordt'r: dcclariryq lhc propcrtic.\ conlaitkd in lhe preriousll' rt:gistL'rttt &)tlvcyancc on sulc to lv got,et nnttnl or tssigned or endo:t ututt lunds or proparties nol ragislerable by any provision ol l \'. "

12. A perusal of the above RLrle indicates that a rcgistered sale deed has to be cancelled by a competent Court and the cancellation deed has to be registcred. Tire conccrned parlies are to be notified before such cancellation.

13. In the present case, a perusal ofthe record discloses that neither there was any direction by the colnpe,tent Court nor there was a proper notice to that eff'ect to the parties concerned, except a lega[ notice issued to the petitioner and the 7'h respondent, that too after the cancellation of the giI1 -.\-=-@r, '/: B CI'h,.] \l P \..21216 ot 20 i5 deeds. lrurtlicr, thc 6tl' respondent by her counter.-afl,idavit stated llrat thc cancellation of the gift deeds is I ntistake on acc()unI o[' sorne rnisunderstandings I I 'Il-crc Ii;re this Court IS of the considc: ed Ylerv t hat heiorc crrtcrlaining the cancellation deed, the Sub-lLegistrtrr has to 1i-.llow tl.rc due proccdure under the Act arrc issue notice to the atl-ectccl partics. Admittedly, the Sub-Rt,sistrar has Ito arrthorit) to canccl the registered docuurerrt:; unilateralll,. I indcr tlrcs,: circunrstances, the impugned canc.:llation cleeds alc sct as,idc

15. In vit',v of the settled provisions of lar' and also the contentic,ns r.aiscd bv 1he parties, this Courl is ol'tlte r iew that thc proc,:criiir,l issucd by the 4th respondent I. arbitrary arrd r oitl. ,\ccoldingh,, the intpugned cancellation ,lccds datccl

25.05..1_0 t5 )rc set aside

16. Wirh rhe above observations, the Writ petition IS allorved. I-hcrc shall be no order as to costs. d \ 9 (iPri.J W P.No.2t2+6 ot ZO ts Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,/zt- l-/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 ( ThePrincioalsecretarytoGoVt.,stampsandRegistrationDepartment,State Oi f"rl.g5ni, telanga'na Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad' The lnspector General of Registration, Stamps and Registration Dept ' M'J' Road, Hyderabad. The District Registrar, south, Dist. Registration OfficSr, at D No S-3-166/5/2' iil Ft;;;, N"y;;. Edtate, At;. to eata"sr,ow Room, Erragadda, Hvderabad' The Sub-Registrar, Charminar Sub-Registration Office' Hyderabad ' The Sub-Reoistrar, Golkonda Sub-Registraliorr Office' Nolelol+5rlol"ai ndi.to Bandhan Function Hall ZafarGuda, Hyderabad. At Ring Door Road, 6 One CC to SRI S.M.SUBHANI, Advocate. [OPUC] T.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana B One CC to M/s.BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES, Advocate lOPUCl 9. Two CD CoPies BSK /l}.\., r/ { I t' 20n -,/ u/ HIGH COURT DATED:1 210912025 i tl: |.l - ,/.>.' l) 'tJ \ ,-^, d ;l ,(iFp ',;., \r,\..r^\-r,\_. -r., ORDER WP.No.21246 oI 2015 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ q ( 2