IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of making the donee a party and considering evidence of delivery and acceptance in cases of unilateral cancellation of gift deeds.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

1. Same point is raised in these two writ petitions and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment.

I will narrate the facts in W.P. (C) No. 29330/2014 first: The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent herein refused to register a cancellation deed executed by them stating that the judgment of this Court prohibits registration of such a document. The petitioners herein own 24.25 cents of property in Alankode Amsom, Panthavoor Desom. They purchased the property by way of document No. 315/1976 from one Thottathuvalappil Abdurahiman Haji. The petitioners have constructed a house in the above property and are residing in the above property. It is submitted that the petitioners, out of their love and affection to their son Mr. Faisal, executed a gift deed in his favour, as per Ext.P1. It is the specific case of the petitioners that though the gift deed was executed, the petitioners did not inform the same to their son Mr. Faisal, who is the beneficiary of the above deed, and hence, mutation of the property was also not effected in the name of Mr. Faisal. It is submitted that even after the execution of the gift deed, the petitioners herein are paying basic tax to the property in their name. The petitioners produced Exts.P2 to P4 to prove the same. Now the petitioners’ son is married and after his marriage, the petitioners’ son does not have any love and affection towards the petitioners, is the submission. According to the petitioners, their son is leading an extravagant life and is selling all the properties in his possession. It is also submitted that if the petitioners’ son comes to know about the execution of Ext.P1 document, he may sell the same and the petitioners will be thrown to the streets. Hence, it has become very much necessary that Ext.P1 settlement deed be cancelled. It is also submitted that since Mr. Faisal has not accepted the above gift, the above deed is not valid. Hence the petitioners drafted a cancellation deed and approached the 2nd respondent for execution of the cancellation deed to cancel Ext.P1 settlement deed. Ext.P5 is the cancellation deed. On receipt of the above document, the 2nd respondent took a stand that the above document cannot be registered because of the dictum laid down by this Court. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners contended that the judgment mentioned by the 2nd respondent is only applicable to a sale deed that was executed, which is admittedly a bilateral contract and that the above principle is not applicable to a gift deed which is a unilateral contract. The petitioners also contended that, this Court, in Ext.P7 judgment, already decided the same issue and directed the 2nd respondent to register the same in a similar factual situation. Hence this writ petition is filed with following prayers:

(i) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to register the Ext.P5 cancellation deed produced by the petitioner.

(ii) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioners may pray from time to time. (SIC)

2. W.P. (C) No. 37443/2016 is filed with following prayers:

(i) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to register the cancellation deed, cancelling the Ext.P1 document which would be produced by the petitioner.

(ii) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioners may pray from time to time. (SIC)

3. The petitioner herein is the co-owner of 39 cents of property comprising in Resurvey No. 11/11 in Nannamukku Amsom, Thekkummuri desom of Nannamukku Village along with his wife Ayishabeevi. The property originally belonged to one Ammalu Amma. The said property was purchased by Vellakkadayil Nasar and Vellakkadayil Muhammed by way of Document No. 885/1992 of