IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.6467 of 2012

Date of Order : 11 -12-2025

Between :

Smt.Balagiri Laxmi, W/o.Shankar …. Petitioner

And

1. The Sub-Registrar, Toopran,

Medak District and two others … Respondents.

O R D E R

Heard Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Ms.D.Shivanandini, learned counsel representing M/s.Pearl Law Associates appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, who was impleaded as per the Court Order dated

14.11.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2023.

2.

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the

1^st respondent i.e. the Sub-Registrar, Toopran, Medak District, in receiving accepting and registering the unilateral cancellation of Deed

of Gift executed by the 2^nd respondent on 02.11.2011 and registering the same as Document No.1232/2011, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to Rule 26(k)(i) of the A.P.Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Rules’).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the 2^nd respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner, out of love and affection, had executed a gift deed in her favour on 19.11.2008, and on the date of execution of the gift deed, delivered possession of the schedule properties mentioned n the gift deed, and since then, she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

4. Petitioner further contends that the 2^nd respondent, without issuing any notice and without filing suit for cancellation of gift deed, unilaterally cancelled the gift deed dated 19.11.2008 executed by him in favour of the petitioner and the same was accepted, received and registered as document No.1252/2011 and that once gift is accepted and possession is delivered to the donee, the donor cannot cancel the gift deed.

5.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the 1^st respondent contends that Rule

26(k)(i) of the Rules is only applicable to the sale deeds and that the Registration Act, 1908, does not bar the 1^st respondent to register the cancellation deeds and therefore, the action of the 1^st respondent in registering the cancellation deed is as per law.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent contends that since the petitioner, who is the sister of the 2^nd respondent, and her husband failed to fulfill the promise of performing the marriages of daughters of the 2^nd respondent and that of looking after them during their life time by providing financial support, he had cancelled the gift deed executed by him on 19.11.2008 and that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the registered cancellation deed dated 02.11.2011 executed by the 2^nd respondent vide document No.1232 of 2011 before this Court, and the only remedy available to her is to approach the Court of Civil jurisdiction.

7.

Learned counsel also contended that the said gift was executed and registered, but actual physical possession of the properties mentioned in the gift deed were not delivered in favour of the petitioner and also property was not mutated in her name and therefore, it can be presumed that the said gift deed was not accepted by the petitioner, which is one of the essential ingredients of the gift.

8.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that subsequent to the execution of gift deed and cancellation deed, the 2^nd respondent is in actual possession of the properties mentioned therein, whereas the petitioner was never in possession of the property at any point of time, however, recently, the revenue authorities have kept the subject property in the prohibited list and the 2^nd respondent’s name is continuing in the revenue records as possessor in respect of the said property, and therefore, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

9. Learned counsel