Petitioner is the younger brother of respondent No.3. The latter owned the property bearing No.17-5-551 near Bungalow Bini, Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. He executed a gift deed, dated 19.07.2006, in favour of the petitioner. There is a recital to the effect that possession of the property is delivered to the petitioner on the same day.

2. The petitioner contends that after the gift became complete with the delivery of possession, entries were made in his name, in the municipal records. He states that the ration card and other amenities are extended to him with reference to the address of the said house and that he is paying the electricity and other charges for the property.

3. Respondent No.3 executed a deed of cancellation on 26.11.2010 cancelling the gift deed, dated 19.07.2006. The document was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Azampura, respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner challenges the action of respondent No.2 in registering the deed of cancellation, dated 26.11.2010. He contends that once the gift deed was executed by respondent No.3, accepted by the donee i.e. the petitioner and possession of the gifted property was delivered, respondent No.3 is not competent in law, to execute a deed of cancellation that too unilaterally. He submits that valuable rights have accrued to him, on becoming the absolute owner of the property and such rights cannot be taken away by unilateral exercise. He contends that the registration of the document by respondent No.2 is contrary to Rule 26 (k) (i) of the A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Rules') framed under Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.317 of 2007 is in relation to the cancellation of a sale deed and the same does not apply to the cancellation of a gift deed.

5. Respondent No.3 filed a detailed counter-affidavit and supporting documents. He submits that though there is a recital in the gift deed, dated 19.07.2006, to the effect that possession of the property was delivered, the physical possession of the property is still with him. He submits that since the possession was not actually delivered, no transaction of gift contemplated under Mohammedan Law can be said to have taken place. According to him, it is always competent for a donor to cancel the gift before the gifted property is delivered to the donee. An objection is raised as to the very maintainability of the writ petition and it is urged that in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the deed of cancellation, the only course open to him is to file a suit for declaration. Reliance is placed upon certain precedents.

6. Heard Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Khaja Manzoor Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

7. It is a matter of record that respondent No.3 has executed a deed of gift on 19.07.2006 in favour of the petitioner. The document was registered as required under law. There is a clear recital to the effect that the possession of the property is delivered in favour of the petitioner herein. The recital reads;

"and handed over vacant possession of schedule property to donee and assure unto and to the use of the donee, the schedule property TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same for donee's use and benefit absolutely and unconditionally, forever."

8. Another recital is to the effect that the petitioner herein shall be entitled to get the relevant entries in the municipal assessment register, electricity and water departments charged in his favour, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. The petitioner filed copies of certain documents, which disclose that the ownership of the property was transferred in his favour in the municipal records and that he is paying electricity and water bills. In the ration card given for the family