The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a donor cannot unilaterally cancel a registered gift deed once the property has been transferred to the donee, setting aside a revocation deed executed by a mother against her son and two departmental circulars that permitted such unilateral cancellations.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that the registration of a unilateral revocation deed by a donor is legally unsustainable and void. The court directed that the only remedy available to a donor who alleges fraud, coercion, or breach of condition is to approach a civil court for cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The ruling came in a writ petition filed by Selam Komala Kumar, whose mother, Selam Padma, had executed a registered settlement deed in his favour on 30 May 2015, covering 288 square yards of site in Nellore. The petitioner accepted the gift and later constructed a building on the property with municipal permission.

Nearly seven years later, on 17 September 2022, Selam Padma executed a deed of revocation unilaterally cancelling the settlement, and the Joint Sub-Registrar, Nellore, registered it as document No. 13770 of 2022. The petitioner only learned of the cancellation in January 2026 when the Nellore Municipal Corporation issued a show-cause notice proposing to remove his name from municipal records based on the revocation.

Challenging the registration, the petitioner argued that the unilateral revocation violated Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules and his right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

Mother's Revocation of Gift Deed Quashed

The court examined the legal framework under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, particularly Sections 123 and 126. Section 123 requires a gift of immovable property to be made by a registered instrument, and once accepted by the donee, the transfer is complete and absolute. Section 126 strictly limits revocation to cases where the parties agree on a specified event or where the gift could be rescinded as a contract, but not at the mere will of the donor.

The judgment observed: "Therefore, a reading of Sections 123 and 126 of the TP Act in juxtaposition, it is abundantly clear that once a donor divests themselves of the title to the property via a registered gift deed , such donor enjoys no residual right to unilaterally revoke it at their mere will. If the donor alleges that the gift was obtained by fraud, coercion, or violation of a condition precedent , his/her sole remedy is to institute a suit under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , before a jurisdictional Civil Court."

The court also rejected the Sub-Registrar's defence that Rule 26(i)(k)(i) applies only to sale deeds and not gift deeds. Citing earlier decisions, including Ediga Chandrasekar Gowd v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the court held that the term "conveyance" in the rule has a wide connotation encompassing deeds of gift and settlement. The rule requires that any cancellation deed must be executed by all parties to the original deed or be accompanied by a court order or mutual consent.

Court Strikes Down Circulars Allowing Unilateral Cancellation

A critical aspect of the judgment was the court's examination of two departmental memos relied upon by the registration authorities: Memo RC.No.G1/10547/2008 dated 18 July 2008 and Memo No.G4/4597/2016 dated 6 June 2016 . These circulars directed registering officers that Rule 26(k) applied only to "deeds of conveyance on sale" and that there was no bar to registering a revocation of gift deed executed unilaterally by the donor.

The court categorically held that these administrative memos could not override statutory rules or substantive law. "It is a trite law that administrative circulars, memos, or executive instructions cannot override, supplant, or run contrary to substantive law or statutory rules. A registered deed of settlement or gift, once accepted and acted upon, results in an absolute transfer of title under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 . The donor is completely divested of his right, title, and interest in the property. Such a vested right cannot be extinguished at the whims and fancies of the donor through a unilateral deed of cancellation, nor can an administrative memo revive such a void document," the court said.

The court further noted that the memos were in direct contravention of Rule 26(i)(k)(i) and the binding precedents of the Supreme Court and the High Court. Allowing such circulars to operate would lead to arbitrary deprivation of property rights without notice or opportunity of hearing to the titleholder.

Legal Framework and Precedents

The judgment traced the evolution of the law on unilateral cancellation. It noted that the Full Bench decision in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma had earlier held that registering officers have inherent power to cancel documents, but the subsequent insertion of Rule 26(k) and the Supreme Court's decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh laid down that unilateral cancellation of a registered deed is non-est in law and void ab-initio. The court also relied on recent decisions in Kolli Rajesh Chowdary v. State of A.P. and Jorigala Bangaram v. Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept., which applied the same principle to gift deeds.

Exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court set aside the revocation settlement deed dated 17 September 2022 and the two impugned memos. The court observed that even though the petitioner had not specifically prayed for setting aside the memos, the wide equity jurisdiction under Article 226 allowed it to do justice in the case.

The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed. The practical consequence is that the municipal corporation cannot proceed to remove the petitioner's name from its records based on the now-void revocation deed, and the registration authorities must adhere to the statutory rule requiring mutual consent or a court order for any cancellation of a registered conveyance, including gift deeds.