APHC010238622022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO:

Between:

Peram Radhika Kiran,

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.

MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

S V MUNI REDDY

2.

GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

3.

SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The action of the 5

th

bearing document No.1358/2022, dated 12.04.2022, thereby unilaterally

revoking the Gift Settlement Deed No.3638/2019, dated 23.11.2019 is

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 13939/2022

...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

The Court made the following:

th

respondent in registering the Cancellation Deed

bearing document No.1358/2022, dated 12.04.2022, thereby unilaterally

revoking the Gift Settlement Deed No.3638/2019, dated 23.11.2019 is

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3332]

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENT(S)

respondent in registering the Cancellation Deed

bearing document No.1358/2022, dated 12.04.2022, thereby unilaterally

revoking the Gift Settlement Deed No.3638/2019, dated 23.11.2019 is

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

2

questioned in this writ petition as being arbitrary and illegal and sought for a

consequential direction to set aside the Cancellation Deed and the settlement

deed bearing document No.1510/2022, dated 30.04.2022 of the Joint Sub-

Registrar, Puttur.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her father-6

th

respondent,

and her mother jointly purchased an extent of 480 sq.yards, of which the

subject property forms part of. In the year 2019, her father by way of gift

settlement deed no.3638/2019, dated 23.11.2019 gifted away his share of

240 sq.yards in her favour and subsequently her mother transferred her share

of the property of 240 sq.yards by way of another gift settlement deed

No.6019/2021, dated 30.12.2021 and eversince she has been in possession

and enjoyment of the same. Her husband got constructed a building therein,

the same was assessed to property tax and the same is in finishing phase and

they intend to earn their livelihood by renting out the premises. Thereafter, at

the instigation of some third parties, disputes and differences arose in the

family and her father started threatening her to cancel the gift deed and

conscious of his statements, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to 4

th

respondent-Joint Sub Registrar, marking copies to his higher-ups in the

registration department requesting them not to entertain any document

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

3

presented for cancellation of the gift deed executed in her favour by her

father. Inspite of the legal notice and in utter disregard to the settled position

of law that unilateral cancellation of registered documents is not permitted

and Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act

prohibits registration of unilateral cancellation deed, the 5

th

respondent-Joint

Sub Registrar received the revocation deed unilaterally cancelling the earlier

registered gift settlement deed presented by petitioner’s father and got it

registered. Further, pursuant to registration of the said revocation deed, the

petitioner’s father executed gift settlement deed No.1510/2022, dated

30.04.2022 gifting away subject matter of the settlement deed executed in

favour of the petitioner in favour of respondent nos.7 & 8. The said action of

the registering authorities is in utter violation of the Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the

Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act and contrary to the

observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Lakshmi

vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2010)15 SCC 207. Accordingly

prayed to allow the writ petition by granting the reliefs sought in the writ

petition.

3. The 5

th

respondent-Sub Registrar, Puttur, filed counter-affidavit

denying the averments of the writ petition and further contending that

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

4

Revocation of Settlement is covered by Article 49(B) of Schedule 1-A to the

Indian Stamp Act,1899. Whereas the deeds cancelling previously registered

sale deeds alone are covered under Rule 26(1)(k) of the Registration Act,1908

which mandates that the registering officers shall ensure that such

cancellation deeds are executed by all the executants and claimants to the

previously registered deeds and revocation of settlement deeds are not

covered by the above and as such execution by both the parties i.e. setlor

and settlee is not mandatory for registration of the revocation deeds

cancelling the previously registered settlement deeds and the said position

was clarified in Director and Inspector General’s Memo No.G4/4956/2016,

dated 06.06.2016, wherein it was stated that as per the Registration Act,1908

and Registration Rules there is no bar for registration of revocation of gift

deed which is executed by the Donor. In view of the above clarification, the

revocation of settlement deed executed by the settlor V.Subbarama Naidu

was processed for registration, since registration of the above revocation deed

is not prohibited and thus there is neither inconsistency nor incongruity. The

writ petition is meritless and the same deserves dismissal.

4. The respondent no.6-executant of the revocation deed, filed his

counter-affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition and further

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

5

contending that Rule 26(k)(i) of the Registration Rules are not applicable in

the instant case, as this is case of revocation/cancellation of settlement deed

and since the petitioner, without exhausting the alternative and efficacious

remedies, has approached this Court directly and therefore the writ petition is

not maintainable. The petitioner brought into existence the gift deed by

playing fraud and he never intended to execute gift settlement deed. The

respondent no.6 instituted the suit vide O.S.No.46 of 2022 against the

petitioner, her husband and her mother now pending on the file of the Court

of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, seeking cancellation of

the Registered settlement Deed Doc.No.3638/2019, dated 23.11.2019. The

respondent nos.7 & 8 instituted the suit vide O.S.No.73 of 2022 against him,

his wife, the petitioner, her mother and father for partition of the property

including the subject property and the same is pending. The 6

th

respondent

married one V.Suguna and through her begot two daughters and himself and

his daughters constitute Hindu Joint family having 1/3

rd

share each in all the

properties including the subject property. The marriage of respondent no.6

with his wife is still subsisting. It is his further case that petitioner’s mother

after begetting the petitioner deserted her husband and developed illegal

intimacy with respondent no.6 and the petitioner and her mother have no

properties. The respondent no.6, during the course of business purchased

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

6

some properties in the name of the petitioner and her mother for business

purpose only but not for her welfare. The respondent no.6 by selling joint

family properties purchased properties in the name of the petitioner, her

mother and husband. When respondent no.6 was suffering with liver disease

and was taking treatment without any support, the alleged settlement deed

was brought into existence by undue influence, blackmailing and playing fraud

on him. The said gift deed recites as if the petitioner was his daughter and he

was executing the document out of love and affection, which are far away

from truth and after recovering from illness, the respondent no.6 demanded

the petitioner to revoke the settlement deed, but she refused and hence

respondent no.6 executed revocation deed. The revocation deed is valid and

Rule 26(k)(1) of the Registration Rules have no application to the gift deeds.

The petitioner has to file a civil suit before competent court of law and this

writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

5. The respondent nos.7 & 8 filed common counter denying the

averments of the writ affidavit further contending that execution of the

revocation deed cancelling the earlier registered settlement deed is in

consonance with the provisions of the Registration Act and hence the reliefs

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

7

sought in the writ petition are liable for rejection. The respondent nos. 7 & 8

filed suit vide O.S.No.73 of 2022 now pending on the file of X Additional

District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Tirupathi, against their-father, mother, writ

petitioner, her mother and husband for partition properties including the

subject matter of the writ petition and also filed an application for orders of

restraint, restraining the defendants in the suit from alienating the property

and the trial Court vide orders dated 12.08.2022 directed both the parties to

maintain status quo. The respondent nos. 7 & 8 learnt that their father filed

O.S.No.46 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional District Judge’s Court, Tirupathi

seeking cancellation of the registered settlement deed No.3638/2019, dated

23.11.2019 executed by him in favour of the writ petitioner and the said suit

is pending adjudication. After birth of the writ petitioner, her mother deserted

her husband and developed illegal intimacy with respondent no.6 and by

fraudulent means got the gift deed executed by him in favour of writ

petitioner, though he has no absolute rights over the property and having

realized the fraud the respondent no.6 executed the revocation deed dated

12.04.2022 cacelling the settlement deed dated 23.11.2019 and thereafter

executed registered settlement deed in favour of respondent nos. 7 & 8 in

relation to the property covered thereunder even before the date of passing

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

8

interim orders in this writ petition. The writ petition being meritless deserves

dismissal.

6. The petitioner filed common reply to all the counter-affidavits filed by

respondents inter alia contending that petitioner is daughter of respondent

no.6 and the same is evident from the contents of the gift settlement deed as

well as revocation deed wherein the petitioner was described as daughter of

respondent no.6 and it is he that performed her marriage, did Kanyadanam

and he was the GPA holder of the petitioner and handled all her financial

activities including purchase and sale of the properties for several years. It is

as part of the family arrangement, the respondent no.6 executed the gift

deed and on account of disputes among members of the family respondent

no.6 is making all possible efforts to cause hardship including financial loss to

the petitioner and execution of revocation deed is part of such efforts. The

statutory mandate under Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Registration Rules, 1908

based on the principles of natural justice is equally applicable to deeds

executed for cancellation of gift settlement deed previously registered, as has

been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in several cases. The

memo No.G4/4596/2016 dated 06.06.2016 alleged to have been issued by

the Director and Inspector General cannot override the statutory provisions.

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

9

The respondent nos. 7 & 8 in collusion with respondent no.6 under the guise

of partition suit are trying to grab the self acquired property of the petitioner

and her husband and pendency of partition suit has no relevancy to the

subject matter in the writ petition, since the writ petition is filed prior in point

of time to the civil suits filed by respondent nos. 6 to 8. In view of the

observations made in Ediga Chandrasekhar Gowd vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh {(2017) 4 ALD 12} that the term “Conveyance” would certainly

include deeds of gift and therefore, Rule 26(i)(k)(i) is applicable to gifts also

and further in view of the observations made in Kolli Rajesh Chowdary v.

State of Andhra Pradesh {(2019)3 ALD 229} the gift deed executed

subsequent to execution of cancellation deed unilaterally is also void, the

subsequent gift deed executed by respondent no.6 in favour of respondent

nos.7 & 8 is void and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to

allow the writ petition.

7. Heard Sri M.Rahul Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 5, Sri S.V.Muni

Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and Sri Subba Rao Korrapati,

learned counsel for respondent nos.7 & 8.

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

10

8. Sri M.Rahul Chowdary, learned counsel, while reiterating the

contents of the writ affidavit further submitted that Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the

Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 prohibits the

registration of unilateral cancellation deed in relation to an earlier registered

document, however the registering authority ignoring the fact that the settlor

under the previous settlement deed is not a party to those documents,

received processed and registered the revocation deed in clear violation of the

mandate contained in the above Rule and therefore, the revocation deed is

wholly void and non-est in the eye of law. The learned counsel would further

submit that in view of the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of

A.P.

1

, that if any sale deed is required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by

way of a civil suit for cancellation, but no cancellation deed can be unilaterally

executed or registered. The learned counsel would further submit that in

Ediga Chandrasekhar Gowd v. Sate of A.P.

2

, it has been held that

“conveyance” has a wider connotation and it would certainly include deeds of

sale/gift/exchange and thus Rule 26(i)(k)(i) is applicable not only to sale

deeds but also to gift deeds as well. The learned counsel would further

1

.(2010) 15 SCC 207 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1063 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 734 at page 209

2.

(2017)4 ALD 12

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

11

submit that since the unilateral cancellation deed revoking earlier gift

settlement deed is null and void, the subsequent gift deed executed by

respondent no.6 in favour of respondent nos.7 & 8 is also void. Accordingly,

prayed to allow the writ petition.

9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader justified the action of the

Registering Authority stating that there is no bar for registration of revocation

of gift deed in view of the instructions of the Director and Inspector General

vide Memo No.G4/4596/2016, dated 06.06.2016 and there is nothing for this

Court to interfere with the action of the registering authority and this writ

petition lacks merits and the same has to be dismissed.

10. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.6, while

reiterating the contents of the counter-affidavit would further contend that

Rule 26(k)(i) of the Registration Rules are not applicable to the

revocation/cancellation of settlement deeds, but only applicable to sale deeds.

The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner instead of

availing alternative and efficacious remedy of getting the revocation deed

cancelled by taking recourse to filing suits in a civil Court has filed the writ

petition and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. The learned

counsel would further submit that the petitioner brought into existence the

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

12

gift settlement deed by playing fraud on respondent no.6 and the respondent

no.6 never intended to execute such a gift deed and in fact the petitioner is

not his daughter and her mother developed intimacy with respondent no.6

after the birth of the petitioner and the contents of the gift deed referring to

the petitioner as daughter would itself suggests falsity of the document and

makes it clear that it has been brought into existence by playing fraud on

respondent no.6 and therefore he executed revocation deed and subsequently

executed settlement deed in respect of the subject property in favour of

respondent nos. 7 & 8. The learned counsel would further submit that as an

abundant caution, the respondent no.6 filed a suit for cancellation of the

registered settlement deed which was cancelled through the revocation deed

and the said suit is pending. The learned counsel would further submit that

daughters of respondent no.6 i.e. respondent nos. 7 & 8 filed suit for partition

of the joint family properties including the subject property and the said suit is

pending and the petitioner herein is made as defendant in both the suits and

she can get her grievance redressed in those suits. There are no merits in this

writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for respondent no.6

relied on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

13

state of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 22.01.2018 passed

in Second Appeal Nos.818 & 819 of 2016.

11. Whereas, Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for respondent

nos.7&8 while reiterating the contents of the counter further contended that

when once a document is registered the Registering Authority, its role stands

discharged and the Registering Authority cannot either invoke or cancel the

registration of document already registered and the aggrieved person of such

registration of the document is free to challenge its validity before the Civil

Court. Therefore, this writ petition filed without approaching the Civil Court is

misconceived and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned

counsel would further submit that the acts of the registering officers being

mere administrative with no public duty involved in it and therefore, the errors

if any committed by them, the party aggrieved shall resort to civil Court for

cancellation of the deed but cannot approach this Court by writ petition. The

learned counsel would further submit that the suit filed by respondent no.6

for cancellation of the settlement deed executed in favour of petitioner is

pending consideration and the petitioner can redress her grievance in the said

suit. The writ petition is misconceived and misdirected and the same is liable

to be dismissed.

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

14

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the

decisions reported in P.Veda Kumari and another v. Sub Registrar,

Hyderabad and another

3

, Satya Pal Anand vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh and another

4

and Amudhavali and Others v. P.Rukumani

and others

5

12. Perused the material available on record and considered the

submissions made by the learned counsel for parties. The facts that are not in

dispute are the respondent no.6 executed a gift settlement deed dated

23.11.2019 in favour of the petitioner gifting away the subject property which

was registered as document No.3638/2019 of Join Sub Registrar’s Office,

Tirupathi. Subsequently, respondent no.6 executed cancellation deed and got

it registered bearing document No.1358/2022 dated 12.04.2022 whereunder

the gift deed executed by him earlier in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.

It is also borne out from the record that respondent no.6 also filed a suit vide

O.S.No.46 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional District

Judge, Tirupathi for cancellation of the registered settlement deed No.

3638/2019 dated 23.11.2019 executed by him in favour of the petitioner and

the said suit is pending adjudication and therein the petitioner is arraigned as

3

., 2017(6) ALD 79

4

. (2016) 10 SCC 767

5

. AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 267

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

15

defendant No.1 while her mother and husband are shown as defendant nos.2

and 3. The record would further reveal that respondent nos. 7 & 8 filed a suit

for partition vide O.S.No.73 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned X

Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and therein vide orders dated 12.08.2022

passed in I.A.No.147 of 2022, which was filed to restrain the respondents

therein from alienating the properties, the Court directed the parties to the

suit to maintain status quo. The subject matter of the writ petition is one of

the items of the plaint schedule properties that are sought to be partitioned

and the petitioner, her mother and husband are arraigned as defendants in

the said suit.

13. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that as per Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules, the

Registering authority is debarred from receiving, processing and registering

the cancellation deed contemplating to cancel the earlier registered

document, unless all the executants of the earlier registered document

execute that document accompanied by mutual consent of the parties.

However, ignoring that specific Rule which mandates consent of all the parties

to the earlier registered document to the revocation deed, the authorities in

utter defiance of the Rule, have received, processed and registered the

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

16

cancellation deed presented by settlor without any consent on the part of the

settlee to the said revocation/cancellation deed.

14. Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules reads as

under:

“26(i) [(k)(i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of presentation for

registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances

on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the

executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale

and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing

mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central

Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered

deed of conveyance on sale;]

Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of

cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously

registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is

executed by a Civil Judge or a Government Officer competent to execute

Government orders declaring the properties contained in the previously

registered conveyance on sale to be Government or Assigned or Endowment

lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law.

(ii) Save in the manner provided for above no cancellation deed of a previously

registered deed of conveyance on sale before him shall be accepted for

presentation for registration.”

15. The above rule in clear terms states that the registering officer shall

ensure at the time of presentation for registration of cancellation deed of

previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such

cancellation deed is executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

17

previously registered conveyance on sale. This Rule prohibits registration of

cancellation deeds executed unilaterally by the executants.

16. In the decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Govt. of A.P., relied on

by the learned counsel for the petitioner (supra 1), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India after referring to Rule 26(i)(k)(i) held thus:

“3. A writ petition was filed seeking declaration that the cancellation deed is

illegal and that has been disposed of by the impugned judgment holding that

the appellants should approach the civil court.

4. In our opinion, there was no need for the appellants to approach the civil

court as the said cancellation deed dated 4-8-2005 as well as registration of

the same was wholly void and non-est and can be ignored altogether. For

illustration, if A transfers a piece of land to B by a registered sale deed, then, if

it is not disputed that A had the title to the land, that title passes to B on the

registration of the sale deed (retrospectively from the date of the execution of

the same) and B then becomes the owner of the land. If A wants to

subsequently get that sale deed cancelled, he has to file a civil suit for

cancellation or else he can request B to sell the land back to A but by no

stretch of imagination, can a cancellation deed be executed or registered. This

is unheard of in law.”

17. The observations referred to above make the things clear that

cancellation of the registered sale deed can only be registered when the sale

deed was cancelled by a competent civil Court and that too after notice to the

parties concerned.

18. Further, in the decision in Haji Mohammed Ahamed v. State of

Andhra Pradesh and others

6

, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that

6

.2012(2) ALD 230

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

18

the observations of the Supreme Court, aforementioned, made in the context

of sale deeds would equally apply to unilateral cancellation of gift deeds also.

Relevant observations made in the said decision are as follows:

“4. The Supreme Court, in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of A.P.,

Judgment in CA No. 791 of 2007 and Batch, held that if any sale deed is

required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by way of a civil suit for

cancellation, but no cancellation deed can be unilaterally executed or

registered. The Supreme Court, after referring to Rule 26(i)(k) of the

Registration Rules, held that it is only when the earlier sale deed is cancelled

by a competent Court can a cancellation deed be registered that too after

notice to the concerned parties; and unilateral cancellation of the sale deed, as

well as registration thereof, were wholly void, non est and meaningless

transactions. The observations of the Supreme Court, aforementioned, made in

the context of sale deeds would equally apply to unilateral cancellation of gift

deeds also. Unilateral cancellation of the gift deed in the present case must

therefore be, and is, declared to be void. It is made clear that this order will

not preclude the respondent from invoking the jurisdiction of the competent

civil Court for cancellation of the subject gift deed.”

19. Thus, it is clear that the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi in relation to sale deeds shall apply to gift deeds.

Therefore, Rule-26(i)(k)(i) prohibits unilateral cancellation of gift deeds also.

20. The observations made in Ediga Chandrasekhar Gowd v. State

of A.P., relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner (supra 2) are to

the effect that the term “conveyance” has wider connotation and it would

certainly include deeds of sale/gift/exchange by which property is transferred

from one person to another. If the Rule making authority which framed Rule

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

19

26(i)(k)(i) intended that the said rule should apply only to sale/gift/ exchange

deeds it would have mentioned these categories of documents specifically.

There was no necessity to use the words “conveyance on sale”.

21. Therefore, the observations made in the above referred decisions

clear the cloud that Rule 26(i)(k)(i) shall also apply to gift deeds. Thus, the

contrary contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot

be countenanced.

22. Thus, the observations made in the above decisions and the relevant

Rule extracted above, would make it clear that unilateral cancellation of the

gift deed must be declared to be void. As a corollary the deeds that were

executed subsequent to execution of such a void cancellation deed shall also

become null and void.

23. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for respondent nos.7

& 8 in Satya Pal Anand (supra 4), their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court

held thus:

“42. In the absence of any express provision in the 1908 Act mandating

the presence of the other party to the extinguishment deed at the time

of presentation for registration, by no stretch of imagination, such a

requirement can be considered as mandatory. The decision in Thota

Ganga Laxmi is with reference to an express provision contained in the

Andhra Pradesh Rules in that behalf. That Rule was framed by the State

of Andhra Pradesh after the decision of Full Bench in Yanala Malleswari v.

Ananthula Sayamma (AIR 2007 AP 57) of the High Court. Therefore, the

dictum in this decision cannot have universal application to all the States.

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

20

Further their Lordships after extracting paras 4 and 5 of the judgment in

Thota Ganga Lakshmi case held at para-43 as follows:

“43. No provision in the State of Madhya Pradesh enactment or the Rules

framed under Section 69 of the 1908 Act has been brought to our notice which

is similar to the provision in Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration

Rules framed in exercise of power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act. That

being a procedural matter must be expressly provided in the Act or the Rules

applicable to the State concerned. In the absence of such an express provision,

the registration of extinguishment deed in question cannot be labeled as

fraudulent or nullity in law. As aforesaid there is nothing in Section 34 of the

1908 Act which obligates appearance of the other party at the time of

presentation of extinguishment deed for registration, so as to declare that such

registration of document to be null and void……”

Their Lordships at para-46 of the judgment further held thus:

“46. In our considered view, the decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi was dealing

with an express provision, as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh and in

particular with regard to the registration of an extinguishment deed. In

absence of such an express provision, in other State legislations, the

Registering Officer would be governed by the provisions in the 1908 Act. Going

by the said provisions, there is nothing to indicate that the Registering Officer

is required to undertake a quasi-judicial enquiry regarding the veracity of the

factual position stated in the document presented for registration or its legality,

if the tenor of the document suggests that it required to be registered. The

validity of such registered document can, indeed, be put in issue before a Court

of competent jurisdiction.”

24. Ultimately, their Lordships observing that since the case of Thota

Ganga Laxmi besides the fact that it was dealing with an express provision

contained in the statutory Rule, namely, Rule 26(k)(i) of Andhra Pradesh

Registration Rules, 1960, was also not a case of a deed for cancellation of

allotment of plot by the Housing society, but of a cancellation of the

registered sale deed executed between private parties, which was sought to

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

21

be cancelled unilaterally, held that the exposition in Thota Ganta Laxmi will

have no application to the facts of that case.

25. A perusal of the observations made by their Lordships in Satya Pal

Anand case, makes it patent that absence of provision in the State of Madhya

Pradesh enactment or the Rules framed under Section 69 of the 1908 Act akin

to Rule 26(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules is highlighted and

held that in the absence of an express provision or Rule the Registering

Officer would be governed by the provisions of 1908 Act and thereby without

taking up any quasi-judicial enquiry has to register the document. And the

validity of such a document can be put in issue before a Court of competent

jurisdiction.

26. The existence of a specific Rule 26(k)(i) in Andhra Pradesh

Registration Rules which mandates registering officer to ensure that

cancellation deed is executed by all the executants and claimant parties to the

previously registered conveyance accompanied by a declaration showing a

natural consent; makes the decision in Satya Pal Anand case inapplicable to

the facts of the case on hand.

27. In P.Veda Kumari and another (supra 3), relied on by the learned

counsel for respondent nos.7 & 8 at para-17, a learned single judge of the

unified High Court of Andhra Pradesh held thus:

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

22

“17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the unilateral execution of a

document of deed of cancellation, cancelling the earlier registered document

and registration of the same by the registering authority prior to the

amendment can validly be done by the Registering Authority and the aggrieved

party can challenge such action, whereas after the amendment the Registering

authority cannot register a document of cancellation without following the

amended Rule 26(k) of the Rules.”

28. The above observations make it abundantly clear that subsequent to

amendment of Rule 26(k) on 02.06.2014 the Registering authority cannot

register a document of cancellation without following the amended Rule. The

facts of the case on hand clearly suggest that registration of unilateral

cancellation deed is of the post-amendment era. Therefore, the above

observations would not come to the rescue of respondents and moreover they

support the version put forth by the petitioner.

29. Further, in the decision in Amudhavali and others (supra 5), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, while taking into consideration the factum of filing

suit questioning the cancellation deed and its pendency and participation of

the appellants by filing written statement in the said suit and further noting

that subsequent to registration of cancellation deed, a portion of land was

transferred, declined to interfere with the order impugned and examine the

validity of the cancellation deed.

30. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for

respondent nos. 7 & 8 referred to supra are not at all applicable to the facts

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

23

of the case on hand, since differ on facts. Rule 26(k)(i) in Andhra Pradesh

Registration Rules in specific terms obligates the Registering officer to ensure

that the revocation deed must be executed by all the parties to the earlier

registered deed sought to be cancelled by the said revocation/ cancellation

deed. Thus, the action of the registering authority receiving the document and

registering it, ignoring the factum that the cancellation deed is only unilateral

and without the consent of the setllee of the earlier gift deed and, is beyond

the authority and jurisdiction conferred upon him by the statute. Therefore,

there was no need for the petitioner to approach the civil Court seeking

cancellation of the cancellation/revocation deed as the said cancellation deed

as well as registration of the same was wholly void and non est and can be

ignored altogether. As a corollary the subsequent gift deed executed by

respondent no.6 in favour of respondent nos.7 & 8 will become null and void.

31. The contention of the respondents that the Memo

No.G4/4596/2016, dated 06.06.2016 of the Director and Inspector General

specifically states that as per Registration Act,1908 and Registration Rules

there is no bar for Registration of revocation of Gift deed which is executed by

the Donor is misdirected in view of the clarification given in the decision

referred to above in Haji Mohammed Ahamed (supra 6), a Coordinate

Bench of this Court held that the observations of the Supreme Court in Thota

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

24

Ganga Laxmi, made in the context of sale deeds would equally apply to

unilateral cancellation of gift deeds also.

32. In the above view of the matter, the only course open to the donor

of a gift deed to get the same cancelled is by approaching the competent civil

Court but not by presenting an unilateral cancellation deed before the

registering authority. Thus, the action of the 5

th

respondent by receiving,

processing and registering the cancellation/revocation deed though presented

unilaterally by the donor without the consent of the donee as required by Rule

26(k)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules, is illegal and arbitrary and thus

the cancellation deed/revocation deed and so also the subsequent gift deed

executed by respondent no.6 in favour of respondent nos.7 & 8 in relation to

the subject property covered under the revocation deed/cancellation deed are

also liable to be set aside being void.

33. In the counter-affidavit, respondent no.6 alleges fraud in bringing

into existence the settlement deed by the petitioner/settlee and that he never

intended to execute such a settlement deed in favour of respondent no.6. As

stated supra, the only option available to the donee- respondent no.6 is to get

the gift deed cancelled by approaching a competent civil Court. The material

available on record amply shows that respondent no.6 had already filed a suit

before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of the settlement deed

RC,J

W.P.No.13939 of 2022

25

executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, her mother and husband

are made party-defendants to the said suit and the said suit is pending

adjudication. Therefore, in case respondent no.6 succeeds in the said suit,

naturally the settlement deed executed in favour of petitioner would get

cancelled by operation of law.

34. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, declaring the

cancellation deed dated 12.04.2022 bearing document No.1358/2022 and the

settlement deed bearing No.1510/2022, dated 30.04.2022 executed by

respondent no.6 in favour of respondent nos.7 & 8 in respect of the subject

matter of the settlement deed on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar’s Office,

Puttur, are void and the concerned Sub Registrar shall make necessary entries

to that effect in relevant registers. There shall be no order as to costs.

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand

closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

_________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Note: L.R. copy to be marked.

B/o

RR