High Court · 2025

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 direction, order or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 't st respondent in receiving, accepting and registering the cancellation of deed of gift executed by the 2nd respondent on 02.11 .2011 and registering the same as document No.123212011, as arbitrary, illegal contrary to Rule 26 (kxi) of A.P. Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 and contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 (1) Decision Today SC (42) and consequently set aside the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 P. NO: 8210 0F 20121 Petition under section 15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation and effect of cancelration of deed of gift dated 02.11.2011 vide document No.123212O11 as registered by the .lst respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.l: cp FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. D.SHIVANANDINI, REp. FOR M/s. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI V.NITESH The Court made the following: ORDER 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI.ANGANA AT HYDERABAD. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETHON No.6467 of 20t2 Date of Order: \\ -12-2025 Between Smt.Balagiri Laxmi, Wo.Shankar Petitioner And

1. The Sub-Registrar, Toopran, Medak District and two others Respondents. ORDER: Heard Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Gorrernment Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Ms.D.Shivanandini, learned counsel representing M/s.Pearl Law Associates appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, who was impleaded as per the Couft Order dated

14.Lt.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2023.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 1$ respondent i.e. the Sub-Registrar, Toopran, Medak District, in receiving accepting and registering the unilateral cancellation of Deed 2 of Gift executed by the 2nd respondent on 02'11'2011 and reqistering the Same as Document N},L232|20|L, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Rule 26(kXi) of the A.P.Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short' 'the Rules').

3. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, out of love and affection, had executed a gift deed in her favour on 19.11.2008, and on the date of execution of the gift deed, delivered possession of the schedule properties mentioned n thegiftdeed,andsincethen,shehasbeeninpeacefulpossessionand enjoyment of the same.

4. Petitioner further contends that the 2'd respondent' without issuing any notice and without filing suit for cancellation of gift deed, unilaterally cancelled the gift deed dated 19'11'2008 executed by him in favour of the petitioner and the same was accepted, received and registered as document No.t252l2OLL and that once gift is accepted and possession is delivered to the donee, the donor cannot cancel the gift deed.

5. on the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the 1* respondent contends that Rule j 1 I I 1 3 26(kxi) of the Rules is only applicable to the sale deeds and that the Registration Act, 1908, does not bar the 1s respondent to register the cancettation deeds and therefore, the action of the 1$ respondent in iegistering the cancellation deed is as per law'

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contends that since the petitioner, who is the sister of the 2nd respondent, and her husband failed to fulfill the promise of performing the marriages of daughters of the 2'd respondent and that of looking after them during their life time by providing financial suppoft, he had cancelled the gift deed executed by him on 19.11.2009 and that the petitioner is not entitred to chailenge the registered cancellation deed dated 02.11.2011 execut.d by the 2nd respondent videdocument No.1232 of 2011 before this court, and the only remedy available to her is to approach the Court of Civil jurisdiction'

7. Learned counsel also contended that the said gift was executed and registered, but actual physical possession of the propefties mentioned in the gift deed were not delivered in favour of the petitionerandalsopropefiwasnotmutatedinhernameand therefore, it can be presumed that the said gift deed was not accepted by the petitioner, which is one of the essential ingredients of the gift.

8. 4 counsel vehemently contended that subsequent to the gift deed and cancellation deed, the 2nd respondent is in of the properties mentioned therein, whereas the never in possession of the property at any point of time, the revenue authorities have kept the subject prohibited list and the 2d respondent's name is revenue records as possessor in respect of the said , prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. appearing on behalf of the 3'd respondent, the month of August,2025, he came to know that dated 09.03.2012 passed by the Couft, the 2nd willfully and deliberately sold a portion of the schedule favour of the 3'd respondent under a registered document dated 29.01.2018. He contends that, if any orders are passed by this Court, the 3'd respondent would be an affected paf,y, and therefore, prays for dismissal the Writ petition.

10. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective contentions urged by the pafties, and perused the record. I l' Rule 26(ixkxi) of the Andhra pradesh Rules under the Regiskation Act, 190g (for short.the Rules) states as under : 5 "26(i) (k) (0 The registering officer shall ensure at the time of preparation for registntion of cancellation deeds of previously registered ded of conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant .andclaimantpartiestothepreviouslyregisteredconveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Cential Govemment annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conve7ance on sale: Providedthattheregisteringofficershalldispensewith the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant partiestothepreviouslyregistereddeedsofconveyanceson sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a ovil Judgeoragovemmentofficercompetenttoexecute governmentordercdeclaringthepropeftiescontainedinthe previously registered conveyance on sale to be government or assignedorendowmentlandsorpropertiesnotregisterable bY anY Provision of law."

12. In terms of the above Rule, when someone wants to register a cancellation deed for a previously registered deed of conveyance or sale deed, the registering officer must make sure that all parties involved in the original deed (both executants and claimants) have signed the cancellation deed, and the cancellation deed includes a declaration showing that everyone agrees to cancel voluntarily' or there is an order from a competent civil court, High court, or the state/central Government canceling the original sale. Any deed of 6 conveyance cancelled by the competent Court, then that cancellation deed can be registered only after issuance of notice to the affected parties.

13. It is well settled position of law that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mafter of Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and othetC in Civil Appeal No.317 of 20072 and batch, held as under: * 5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(k)(i) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Sedion 69 of the Registration Act, lg0g Rule also supports the obseruatrbns we have made above. It r's only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the partres concerned. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the pafties. Hencq this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellatrbn deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions."

14. The 2nd respondent did not dispute the factum of execution of gift deed in favour of the petitioner, however, he denies the delivery of possession of the subject propefty to the petitioner. However, once a donor voluntarity executes a registered gift deed, the law mandates

2.(2O10) 15 SCC 207 / r' 7 that any attempt to revoke or cancel such deed must be undertaken only by approaching a competent Civil Court. A unilateral cancellation is impermissible in law. If the 2d respondent intends to cancel the gift deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner, he ought to have approached the competent Civil Court. The principle of estoppel becomes applicable in such cases. Even in cases where consideration is absent, as is inherent in a gift, the donor cannot by merely alleging non-acceptance, unilaterally nulliff a completed transfer. Such issues can only be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court on the basis of proper pleadings and evidence.

15. The submission of the 3'd respondent that a part of the schedule property was fufther alienated in his favour on 29'01.2018, despite the subsistence of the interim suspension order granted by this Court, raises serious factual questions regarding the validity of such subsequent transactions and compliance with the Court's interim directions. These are matters, which necessarily require detailed examination of evidence and cannot be resolved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appropriate forum for adjudication of such disputed questions of lact is the competent Civil Court. r 8

16. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deem it appropriate to set aside the unilateral cancellation of gift deed dated 02.11.2011, leaving it open to the affected parties to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of their disputes. In the event of any aggrieved party approaches the competent Civil Court, the Court is at liberty to dispose of the same on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

17. Accordingly, the impugned unilateral cancellation of gift deed dated 02. 1 1.20 1 1 yde Doc. No .t232 I 201 t is set aside.

18. In the result, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

19. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// .PONNA KRISHNA REGI SECTION OFF]CER

6. The Sub-Registrar, Toopran, Medak District. One CC to SRI GADDAM SR|NIVAS, Advocate I One CC to SRI V.N|TESH, Advocate [OpUC] One CC to M/s. PEARL LAW ASSOCTATES, Advocate [OpUC] Tyv_o CCs to GP FOR STAMP.S q REG|STRAT|ON, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies " --- - '' "v" BSR N/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1111212025 ,/ ORDER WP.No.6467 of 2012 1:+i; :-i i 4 3 lE * Dr' 'lp^, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \6 \L