SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 1531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Peram Radhika Kiran – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP No.13939 of 2022
Decided On : 24-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Meka Rahul Chowdary
For the Respondent: S.V. Muni Reddy, Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps (AP) and Subba Rao Korrapati

Unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed is prohibited without mutual consent, rendering such deeds void under Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Registration Act, 1908.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Rule 26(i)(k)(i) - Unilateral cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed - The action of the Joint Sub-Registrar in registering the unilateral cancellation deed is challenged as arbitrary and illegal; Rule mandates consent from all parties for revocation - Previous deeds are voided, aligning with Supreme Court precedent. (Paras 12, 14, 19, 32)

(B) Legal Principle - The court reinforced the principle that unilateral cancellation of registered deeds, both gift and sale, violates statutory requirements as established in Thota Ganga Lakshmi v. Government of A.P., 2010. (Paras 16, 20, 32)

Facts of the case:
A gift settlement deed executed by the petitioner’s father in 2019 was later unilaterally revoked in 2022, prompting legal contestation over validity. The petitioner claimed continued possession while alleging the revocation originated from family disputes, while respondents asserted it was consensual, invoking fraud claims.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the unilateral cancellation was illegal under Rule 26 and established that subsequent actions attempting to transfer ownership were invalid.

Issues: The main issues included whether the unilateral cancellation of the gift deed was valid per statutory rules and the petitioner’s standing to contest the revocation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unilateral cancellation is impermissible without all parties’ consent, necessitating a civil suit for valid cancellation. The revocation deed was thus declared void.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, declaring the cancellation deed and subsequent gift deed as void, and ordered relevant entries in the registers.

Table of Content
1. gift deeds and their revocation (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on the validity of the cancellation deed (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments against unilateral cancellation. (Para 6)
4. court’s analysis of registration rules (Para 12 , 13 , 16 , 18)
5. court discusses applicability of rule 26. (Para 14 , 15 , 17)
6. legal interpretation of conveyance (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
7. court's ruling on voiding the cancellation deed. (Para 30 , 31)
8. conclusion on the void nature of cancellation deed (Para 32 , 34)

JUDGMENT /ORDER :

The action of the 5th respondent in registering the Cancellation Deed bearing Document No.1358/2022, dated 12.04.2022, thereby unilaterally revoking the Gift Settlement Deed No.3638/2019, dated 23.11.2019 is questioned in this writ petition as being arbitrary and illegal and sought for a consequential direction to set aside the Cancellation Deed and the settlement deed bearing Document No.1510/2022, dated 30.04.2022 of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Puttur.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her father-6th respondent, and her mother jointly purchased an extent of 480 Sq. yards, of which the subject property forms part of. In the year 2019, her father by way of Gift Settlement Deed No.3638/2019, dated 23.11.2019 gifted away his share of 240 Sq.yards in her favour and subsequently her mother transferred her share of the property of 240 Sq. yards by way of another Gift Settlement Deed No.6019/2021, dated 30.12.2021 and ever since she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Her husband got constructed a building therein, the same was assessed to property tax and the same is in finishing phase and they intend to earn their livelihood by renting out the premises. Thereafter, at the instigation of some third parties, disputes and differences arose in the family and her father started threatening her to cancel the gift deed and conscious of his statements, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to 4th respondent-Joint Sub-Registrar, marking copies to his higher-ups in the Registration Department requesting them not to entertain any document presented for cancellation of the gift deed executed in her favour by her father. Inspite of the legal notice and in utter disregard to the settled position of law that unilateral cancellation of registered documents is not permitted and Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the ANDHRA PRADESH RULES under the REGISTRATION ACT prohibits registration of unilateral cancellation deed, the 5th respondent-Joint Sub-Registrar received the revocation deed unilaterally cancelling the earlier registered gift settlement deed presented by petitioner's father and got it registered. Further, pursuant to registration of the said revocation deed, the petitioner's father executed Gift Settlement Deed No.1510/2022, dated 30.04.2022 gifting away subject-matter of the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos.7 & 8. The said action of the registering authorities is in utter violation of the Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the ANDHRA PRADESH RULES under the REGISTRATION ACT and contrary to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , (2010) 15 SCC 207 . Accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition by granting the reliefs sought in the writ petition.

3. The 5th respondent-Sub-Registrar, Puttur, filed counter-affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition and further contending that Revocation of Settlement is covered by Article 49(B) of Schedule 1-A to the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899. Whereas the deeds cancelling previously registered sale deeds alone are covered under Rule 26(1)(k) of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 which mandates that the Registering Officers shall ensure that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executants and claimants to the previously registered deeds and revocation of settlement deeds are not covered by the above and as such execution by both the parties i.e., settlor and

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top