A registered document cannot be unilaterally cancelled without following due procedure or notifying affected parties; recourse to a competent Civil Court is necessary.

ORDER :

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

Heard Sri N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of official respondents and Sri V.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 5^th respondent in both the Writ Petitions, and perused the record.

2. W.P.No.10523 of 2014 is filed assailing the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in registering the Cancellation Deed vide Doc.No.738 of 2014 dated 13.03.2014 as illegal and arbitrary with a consequential direction to set aside the same.

3. W.P.No.10524 of 2014 is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in registering the Cancellation Deed vide Doc.No.730 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014 as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to set aside the same.

4. Since, the issue involved and the facts are similar in both the Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

W.P.No.10523 of 2014

5. The facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.10523 of 2014 are that originally, the petitioner’s paternal grandmother by name Smt.Akheelunnisa purchased the schedule property bearing Flat No.B2/F4, M.C.H. No.3-4-864/5, Ground Floor admeasuring 920.00 sq. ft. along with undivided share of land of 36.00 sq. yard, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad under a registered sale deed on 21.03.1986 from the A.P. Housing Board. Subsequently, the said Smt.Akheelunnisa, out of love and affection towards the petitioner, had gifted the schedule property in favour of the petitioner on 07.08.2006 under a registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.3071 of 2006 and handed over possession along with all link documents, and the petitioner accepted the gift and possession. The 5^th respondent herein is the one of the witnesses to the said Gift Settlement Deed.

6. After the demise of Smt.Akheelunnisa on 04.07.2012, the 5^th respondent, who is the grandfather of the petitioner, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, unilaterally cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.738 of 2014 on 13.03.2014.

7. Aggrieved by the said cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed, the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing W.P.No.10523 of 2014 stating that the 5^th respondent has nothing to do with the subject property and without having any right, title or interest over the property, after seven years of execution of Gift Settlement Deed, unilaterally cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed and the official respondents entertained the same by registering the document.

8. Petitioner further contends that once the document is executed and registered, subsequently the same cannot be unilaterally cancelled as per Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the A.P. Rules under Registration Act. Petitioner therefore contends that the Gift Settlement Deed was executed by the original owner i.e. grandmother of the petitioner and that the 5^th respondent, who is petitioner’s grandfather, without any right, had unilaterally cancelled the same against the settled principle of law.

9. The 4^th respondent Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Hyderabad filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the Writ Petition. However, it is stated that cancellation of Registered Gift Settlement was registered on 13.03.2014 by following the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad vide Memo dated 18.07.2008. It is further submitted that there were instructions from the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad, through which it was ordered that Rule 26(k) of the Registration Rules is applicable for the previously registered Deeds of conveyance on sale only, but not f