The 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 writ or direction more pa(icularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus by. declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in registering the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed dated 16.2.2015 vide Document No.1484/2015 executed by the 4th respondent whereunder the 4th respondent cancelled the Gift Deed dated 19.1.2013 vide Document No.373/2013 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner as Helga!, conlrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act,1908 and Rules made under and further declare that the Document No.1484 0f 2015 dated 16.2.2015 executed by the 4th respondent as egistered by the 3rd respondent is null and void and unenforceable. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s( WPMP. NO: 14966 OF 2015) Petition under Sectron i 5'l cpc praying that in the crr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou.1 may be pleased to suspend the registration of Revocation of Gift Settlement I eed vide Ddcument No.1 484 of 2015 dated 16.2.2015 executed by the 4th resp ) rdent and registered by the 3rd respondent. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(WP MP. NO: 34396 0F 2015) Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the cirr rmstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to extend the lnterim Order granted on 01.05.2015 in Wp No..1 1: 16 of 20.15. counsel for the Petitioner: sRt ALLADI RAVINDER, sENtoR couNSEL DULy counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 To 3: SRr H.RAKESH KrJ vrAR, AGp FoR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 6: - The Court made the following: ORDER ASSISTED BY SRI B.SRIKAt TH REVENUE IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD )**** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRTT PETITIOT{ o.11336 of 2015 DATE=22.L2.2O25 Between: Jannapureddy Sumanth ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Department of Revenue, (Stamps & Registration), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Represented by its Principal Secretary and others ORDER ...Respondents Heard Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Sri P.Srikanth, learned counsel, and Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant .Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in registering the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed dated 16.02.2015 vide Document No.1484 of 2015 executed by the respondent No.4 whereunder the respondent No.4 cancelled the Gift Deed dated 19.01.2013 vide Document No.373 of z r) 2013 executed by her in favour of the petitioner, as i egal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and i lso contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and tr: Rules made thereunder.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondr: t No.4 is his paternal grandmother having agricultural land to an ex:r nt of Acs.9.O0 in Survey No.32313 situated at Nandanam Rev:nue Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District. The petitione, ; grandmother executed a registered gift deed on 19.01.2013 in avour of the petitioner specifically stating that she had gifted awe / the subject property to the petitioner, out of love and affecti, n being her grandson. She had also handed over the possession () the property and entries to that effect were also made in the pathrr ar pass Book and since then, the petitioner is in continuous pc;session and enjoyment of the said land.

4. While so, the petitioner came to know that the res rondent No.4 cancelled the gift deed by way of revocation deed after two years of executing the gift and the same was registered by tr I respondent No.3, videDocument No.1484 of 2015 dated 16.02.2025 5. Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel, would :ontend that when the gift was accepted and the valuable rights hav: accrued on the petitioner, the respondent No.4 has no power to re roke the gift 3 deed and the respondent No.3 has no authority under law to register the same. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the order of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.12552 of 2012 dated 27.06.2012, wherein this Court took note of the relevant provision of law in Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta .;l ' ,,u/'"'";The District Registrar, Srikakulanl and held that unilateral cancellation of the document is untenable.

6. When the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court, vide order dated 01.05.2015, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on date for a period of six weeks.

7. During pendency of the Writ Petition, the respondent No.4 died on

01.06.2017. Her legal representatives - respondent Nos.5 and 6 were brought on record vide order dated 18.09.2025 in I'A.No.1 of 2024- Thereafter, though notices have been sent to the legal representatives of the unofficial respondent No.4, respondent Nos.5 and 6, the same were returned with an endorsement "no such person at this addres!'. However, since the impugned registration of revocation of gift deed is made unilaterally without issuing any notice to the affected party, the same is liable to be set aside, and therefore, the matter can be proceeded with, without the audience of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6. I 2012 (1) L.S. 329 I I \ ,- 4 \ o

8. Even the official respondents, who are r lpresented by the Standing Counsel, did not file any counter, though rearly a decade had elapsed from the date of filing of the Writ petition. 9. In the recent judgment of the Hon,ble Suc .eme Court in the matter of Thota Ganga Laxmi and another %;. State of Andhra Pradesh and other*, it was held at para 5 as un,J rr: ^ 5. In this connection, we may also refer to ?u/e 26(kX0 relating to Andhn pradesh under Sectiorr 69 of the Rqistration Act, 190g, whtth states: "(i) The regrstering officer shatt ensure at. ahe time of preparation for registration of cancet/atio, , deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances ar, sale before him that such ancellation deeds are execule 1 by a// the executant and claimant parttes to tht, prevtously registered conveyance on sale and that such , ancellation deed is accompanied by a declaratbn shon og natural consent or orderc of a competent Ciuil or H,9 i Court or State or Central Government annulling the ransaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale: provided that the rqistering officer shall di:.l ense with the execution of can@ltation deeds by exe.t tant and cldimant paftbs to the previously registered Teeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancel/ah. 1 deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a governme t I officer

2.(2O1O) 1s scc 207 5 competent to execute govemment orderc declaing the properties conbined in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be government or assigned or endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law. " . A reading of the above Rule also supporB the , -t observations we have made above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the ancellation deed an be registered and that too after notice to the parties 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 ancellation deed as well as registntion thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transadions. "

10. A reading of the above Rules clearly states that it is 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 parties concerned. I 1. Following the same, even this Court recently , vide judgment dated 22.08.2025 in W.P.Nc.27204 of 2015, held that the Sub- Registrar haS no power to cancel the agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney unilaterally without following due procedure and without issuing any notice to the affected parties.

12. In the instant case, admittedly, though the gift deed was executed on 19.01.2013, the revocation of gift deed was registered t I l=w .- \l \. \\ (', 6 after two years i.e. on 16.02.2015 and neither is there , ny declaration by a competent Court nor was there any notice to the ef ected parties.

13. In view of the seftled position of law, this : lurt deems it appropriate to set aside the registration of revocatir) r of gift deed dated 16.02.2015 vide Document No.1484 of 2015 by he respondent No.3.

14. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. lv cordingly, the registration of revocation of gift settlement deed dttt :d 16.02.2015 rile Document No.1484 of 2015 by the respondent No.: is set aside. It is however left open to the parties to the respondents t I workout their remedies in accordance with law. No order as to costs, 1 5. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stanrl Josed. SD,. ASI; (.BHAVANIS-\^1^YI / STANT REGISTRAR, / I l //TRUE COPY// To 1 2 3 4 6 PSK, \ \ *:gu:1ryN't$g$sr*rur:ffi: Hvderabad. [OUT] Two CD CoPies Secnott oFFlcER \ t of Revenue, bad. al. te of Telangana, at HIGH COURT DATED:2211212025 ORDER WP.No.11336 of 2015 -==1-': i r,l l'ri U <J OE t ll ll1lj .:? i)i - -:;--- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q J 9\