( 1 ) THE Writ petition No. 484 of 2006 is filed by three petitioners. The first petitioner is mother of petitioners 2 and 3. The second petitioner in this writ petition filed another writ petition separately being W. P. No. 483 of 2006. The mother and two daughters filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 3 in executing the cancellation deed bearing document No. 6330/2005, dated 22. 12. 2005 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential order restraining the respondents from alienating, transferring and conveying the house bearing No. 13-54/1, plot no. 14, Survey No. 221, situated at Pandt colony, Gaddiannaram village (hereafter called, the house ). The second writ petition being W. P. No. 483 of 2006 is filed for a similar relief in respect of another cancellation deed bearing document No. 6329/ 2005, dated 22. 12. 2005, executed by third respondent. Be it noted, the respondents in both the writ petitions are same and the third respondent is none other than the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3, as alleged in the writ petition. For the purpose of this order, the parties are referred to by their status in w. P. No. 484 of 2006.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the third respondent married the first petitioner in 1980 and during the wedlock petitioners 2 and 3 were born. The third respondent purchased house site admeasuring 200 square yards marked as plot No. 14 in Survey no. 221, Gaddiannaram village and later constructed a residential building with ground plus two floors bearing house No. 13-54/1. The third respondent also purchased a commercial shop bearing No. 2, ground floor, manikanta Classic Complex (hereafter called, the mulgi) under a registered sale deed, dated 11. 3. 2005.

( 3 ) THE third respondent allegedly, in 1990, developed illegal intimacy with one smt. Padmavathi, divorced wife of seshagiri Rao. This resulted in matrimonial disharmony between the first petitioner and the third respondent. The third respondent allegedly subjected the petitioners to physical and mental cruelty. In February 2005, well wishers of the family sought to settle the matter amicably. As part of the said settlement, the third respondent executed a registered gift deed bearing document no. 3112/2005, dated 24. 6. 2005, in respect of house in favour of all the three petitioners. On the same day, he executed another registered gift deed being document no. 3111/2005 (wrongly typed in the affidavit as document No. 3112/2005) in favour of second petitioner (petitioner in W. P. No. 483/ 2006) in respect of mulgi. The petitioners allege that in pursuance of the two registered gift deeds, the petitioners took delivery of possession, got the property mutated in their names with Gaddiannaram Municipality and are enjoying the property. On 19. 12. 2005, the third respondent allegedly bet the petitioners, as a result of which, the first petitioner underwent surgery for compound fracture. After her discharge from the hospital, the petitioners came to know that the third respondent executed cancellation of gift deed on 22. 12. 2005. By registered document No. 6329/2005, the gift deed in favour of the second petitioner was cancelled and by document No. 6330/2005, the gift deed in favour of all the three petitioners was cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition is filed.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that when once a gift deed is executed, the donor cannot cancel the same unilaterally. He submits that the third respondent cancelled the gift deed in collusion with first respondent without even giving any notice to the petitioners and the action of the third respondent being unfair, the same can be corrected in this public law remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of india. The learned Counsel also relied on a decision of this Court in K. Gopal Reddy v. Secretary, 2004 (2) ALD 317.

( 5 ) WHEN a person is aggrieved

Click Here to Read the rest of this document