[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
K Venu Rami Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 August, 2025
APHC010195312023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.
N 10051/2023
BETWEEN:
1. K VENU RAMI REDDY, S/O. KOPPARTHI
MAHESWARAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O.SETTYVARIPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, MYDUKUR
MUNICIPALITY AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT,
2. K.VENU LAKSHMI REDDY, S/O.KOPPARTHI
MAHESWARAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O.SETTYVARIPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, MYDUKUR
MUNICIPALITY AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT,
...Petitioner(s)
etitioner(s)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STAMPS AND
REGISTRATION, A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI.
2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MYDUKUR MANDAL, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT.
3. K MAHESWARAREDDY, S/O.K.RAMIREDDY, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. R/O.SETTYVARIPALLE VILLAGE
AND POST, MYDUKUR MUNICIPALITY AND MANDAL,
YSR KADAPA DISTRICT,
2
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an order, direction
or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus in
declaring the illegal action of 2nd respondent in registering the
impugned cancellation of Regd Deed No.10826/2022
dt.21.10.2022 presented by the 3rd respondent unilaterally by
cancelling the earlier Regd. Gift Deed No.8208/2012
dt.22.11.2012 in favour of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and
consequently set aside the afore said impugned Cancellation of
Gift Deed No.10826/2022 dt.21.10.2022 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A RADHAKRISHNA
2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The present Writ of Mandamus is filed to declare the illegal
action of 2nd respondent in registering the Impugned Revocation
Deed No.10826/2022 dated 21.10.2022 presented by the 3rd
respondent unilaterally by cancelling the earlier Gift Deed
registered in favour of the petitioners vide Document No.8208
/2012, dated 22.11.2012, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to
set aside the afore said impugned Revocation Deed
No.3687/2022 dated 06.10.2022, and for any other relief as this
Hon’ble Court deems it appropriate.
2. Succinctly, the present Writ Petition is filed to cancel the
execution of the Revocation Deed No.10826/2022 dated
21.10.2022, executed by the 3rd respondent.
3. Point for consideration is whether the registered gift deed
can be cancelled unilaterally?
4. The issue of whether a cancellation deed can be set aside
is no more res integra, as this Court has delivered numerous
orders granting the requested relief, including setting aside the
registration of the cancellation deed. In this regard it is imperative
to extract the relevant provision of the Registration Act.
4
Rule 26 (k) (i) The Registering officer shall ensure at the time of
presentation for registration of Cancellation Deeds of previously
registered deed of con-veyances 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 deeds 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 this the registering officer shall dispense with the
execution of cancellation deeds by the 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 registered by any provision of law.
(ii) Save in the manner provided for above no cancellation deeds of
a previously registered deed of conveyance on sale before him
shall be accepted for presentation for registration.
5. The sub Rule (k)(ii) of Rule 26 spells out that no
cancellation deeds of a previous deed of conveyance on sale
before him shall be accepted for presentation for registration.
6. In the present case, the Sub Registrar accepted the Gift
Deed executed by the unofficial respondent and cancelled the Gift
Deed executed by the unofficial respondent which is contrary to
rules.
5
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and another
v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1 held that unilateral
cancellation of sale deed is impermissible that the cancellation as
well as the registration of the sale deed void and non est and can
be ignored altogether.
8. The gift deed may be suspended or revoked only under the
conditions mentioned under Section 126 of the Transfer of the
Property Act and it is necessitated to extract the said Section for
proper disposal of the Writ Petition. Section 126 of the Transfer of
the Property Act, 1882 reads as follows:-
Under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, the
Gift Deed may be suspended or revoked only in the
condition enumerated in the Section. The donor and
donee may agree that on the happening of any
specified event which does not depend on the will of
the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked, but a
gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly
or in part; at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly
or in part, as the case may be. A gift may also be
revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of
consideration), in which, if it were a contract, it might
be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be
revoked.
1
(2010) 15 SCC 207
6
9. In this regard, this Court placed reliance on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hamdamal v. Avadiappa Pather and
others2, wherein it is held that on the delivery of the deed to the
done, there was an acceptance of the transfer within Section
122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and thereupon the gift
became final, subject to its registration as required by Section
123 of the Act.
11. Nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to affect
the rights of transferees for consideration without notice.
12. In Kolla Rajesh Chowdary v. State of Andhra Pradesh, a
learned Single Judge of the High Court held that Rule 26 (k) (ii) is
equally applicable to the gift deed.
13. The said Rule 26 (k) was challenged before the Composite
High Court in Kaitha Narasimha v. The State Government of A.P.,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,(W.P.No.3744/2007) a Division
Bench of the Composite High Court, by order dated 13.3.2007,
while upholding the said Rule has held as follows:-
“In our opinion, the impugned rule does not in any manner
violate the ratio of the majority judgment of the Full Bench.
Rather, as mentioned above, it is a statutory embodiment
of one of the rules of natural justice and is intended to2
1991(1)SCC 715
7curtail unnecessary litigation emanating from the ex parte
registration of cancellation deeds.”
14. As indicated in the above judgment, the principles of
natural justice are also to be adhered to by the Registering Officer
while dealing with a deed of cancellation of sale. If a unilateral
cancellation deed is allowed to be registered, without the
knowledge and consent of the other party to the earlier contract,
as held by the Division Bench of the Composite High Court, such
registration would cause violence to the principles of natural
justice and lead to unnecessary litigations emanating therefrom.
15. As the cancellation of the Gift Deed executed by the
unofficial respondent is contrary to Rule 26 (K) (ii) of the
Registration Act, 1908 and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court Thota Ganga Laxmi‘s case (referred supra 1), the
cancellation deed executed by the registrant-unofficial respondent
is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending shall
stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 13.08.2025
Harin
8
113
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
W.P.No. 10051 OF 2023
Date: 13.08.2025
Harin
[ad_2]
Source link