These Writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order in view of the commonality hi the cases and also due to the fact that the order challenged is passed by the Sub-Registrar, Repalle, Guntur District (first respondent in all the writ petitions). Further, the impugned order of refusal of registration is similar. The background of these cases as is given in the next paragraph is also similar.

2. The fourth respondent, Jasti Venkata Subbamma, and her husband Jasti Venkata Subba Rao have three sons and four daughters. The elder son, Siva Rama Prasad, predeceased his father. The husband of fourth respondent died on 16-9-2007 leaving behind him considerable extent of immovable, property - houses/house plots and agricultural lands in Tenali Mandal. It is also not disputed that during his lifetime, Venkata Subba Rao effected partition among his children, and after his death, his property was succeeded by the fourth respondent. Late Siva Rama Prasad, Subrahmanyeswara Rao and Bhujangeswara Rao (youngest one) (petitioner in W. P. No. 6015 of 2008) are her sons. Nagaraja Kumari (petitioner in W. P. No. 6021 of 2008), Damayanthi, Swarna Kumari and Vijaya Laxmi are daughters of fourth respondent. The second son Subrahmanyeswara Rao, was given in adoption to father of fourth respondent.

3. On 16-1-2008 fourth respondent presented five gift deeds before Sub-Registrar, Repalle. These were executed in favour of her youngest son, her grandson, her granddaughter through first daughter, her eldest daughter and another grandson. First respondent, however, did not register them immediately for the reason that all properties are situated within the jurisdiction of registering authority of Tenali. Documents are kept pending being document Nos. P2 to P6 of 2008. On 22-1-2008 fourth respondent issued a Telegram. to the first respondent informing latter that without her knowledge, petitioners brought into existence the gift deeds/settlement deeds, that she is not a native of Repalle Sub-Registrar limits and • that her thumb impressions were obtained on the gift deeds under threat. She also lodged a First Information Report on 23-1-2008 with P. S. Amarthalur under Sections 420, 384, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860. On 29-1-2008, she gave a representation stating that gift deeds were obtained by coercion and without her consent. In response to all these, first respondent gave a notice to fourth respondent on 23-2-2008 and rejected the registration and subsequently on 26-2-2008 first respondent returned the five documents to fourth respondent. It is also brought to the notice of this Court (though no additional affidavit is filed) by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequently the fourth respondent was taken to Vijayawada by Thummala Damayanthi (daughter) and fourth respondent executed gift deeds in favour of others, out of which two are registered and others were rejected. In these writ petitions petitioners challenge the action of ,the first respondent refusing registration.

They seek a writ of mandamus declaring the refusal as illegal and arbitrary and for a direction to first respondent to register the gift • deeds by duly summoning them from the fourth respondent.

4. At the stage of admission itself, counter affidavits have been filed. First respondent filed counter affidavit justifying rejection contending as follows. Admitting the case of the petitioners to the extent of presenting the gift deeds and keeping them pending as document Nos. P2 to P6 of 2008, it is also admitted that after receiving the telegram issued by the fourth respondent on 22-1-2008, and certificate issued by Tahsildar cancelling the residence certificate, as well as representation dated 29-1-2008 sent by the fourth respondent, the documents were kept pending. Fourth respondent appeared before first respondent on 11-2-2008 and deposed that she has no property under the jurisdiction of first respondent and that her thumb impres