A unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed without the donee's consent is void ab initio, reaffirming that rights pass to the donee upon valid execution of the gift.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

The petitioner has made the following prayer in this writ petition:

“a. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to hold and declare that the Respondent Authorities particularly Respondent No.2 do not have jurisdiction to cancel Registered Gift Deed No. 2159/86 dated 21st of February 1986 and to further hold the Deed of Cancellation bearing No. 7849 dated 11th of July 1990 is null and void and subsequent sale deed no. 6683 dated 24th of June 1992 by the Donor of Gift Deed No. 2159/86 dated 21st of February 1986 is null and void in the eye of law.

b. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."

2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Anil Kr. Ganjhu, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Cancellation Gift Deed by Kedar Nath Sahu dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) in the office of Respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that Cancellation of Gift Deed unilaterally by Kedar Nath Sahu is complete in violation of the judgment passed in the case of “ N. Thajudeen Vs. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board " reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037 and also in violation of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is submitted that Cancellation Deed dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) is void and ab initio and could not have been done unilaterally without informing the Donee in whose favour Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) was executed.

4. It is submitted that initially Kedar Nath Sahu has executed a Registered Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986 in favour of Roshan Lal (Vide Annexure-1) with regard to the Scheduled Property. It is submitted that Gift was registered in the name of the petitioner on 21.02.1986 by Registered Gift Deed No. 2159/86 dated 21st of February 1986 in favour of Samrendra Kumar @ Roshan Lal by Kedar Nath Sahu (i.e. Annexure-1). Thereafter said Samrendra Kumar @ Roshan Lal sold the Scheduled Property to the petitioner by Registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-2) on the consideration amount of Rs.95,00,000/- (Ninety Five Lakhs Only).

However, inadvertently, in the sale deed dated 11th of June 2020 (Annexure-2), the deed number of Gift Deed was inadvertently mentioned as 2154 instead of 2159 and therefore a Deed of Rectification bearing No. 5505 dated 5th of September 2022 was executed to correct the deed number of the Gift Deed. Thereafter, the Petitioner got his name mutated in the scheduled property vide order dated 20th of September 2022 passed in Mutation Case No. 120R27/2022-23.

5. However, the petitioner learnt recently that Kedar Nath Sahu, after execution of the Gift Deed bearing No. 2159/86 dated 21st of February 1986 (Annexure-1), executed a unilateral Cancellation Deed bearing No. 7849 dated 11th of July 1990 by which the Gift Deed No. 2159/86 dated 21st of February 1986 (Annexure-1) was cancelled.

Thereafter, Kedar Nath Sahu executed a Sale Deed bearing No. 6683 dated 24th of June 1992 (i.e. Annexure-5) by which Kedar Nath Sahu sold the Scheduled Property in favour of his son Manoj Kumar Gupta (father of the Respondent No. 3).

6. It is submitted that Section 123 of the T.P. Act (in short, T.P. Act) 1882 provides th