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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 59039

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Jannapureddy Sumanth Sio Yadava Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana Department of Revenue – Respondent
WP 11336/2015



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

* * * *

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.11336 of 2015

DATE: 22.12.2025

Between

Jannapureddy Sumanth

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Department of Revenue,

(Stamps & Registration), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad,

Represented by its Principal Secretary and others

…Respondents

ORDER

Heard Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner duly assisted by Sri P.Srikanth, learned counsel, and

Sri H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2.

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare

the action of the respondent No.3 in registering the Revocation of Gift

Settlement Deed dated 16.02.2015 vide Document No.1484 of 2015

executed by the respondent No.4 whereunder the respondent No.4

cancelled the Gift Deed dated 19.01.2013 vide Document No.373 of

##PAGE2##

2

2013 executed by her in favour of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary

and in violation of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to

the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made

thereunder.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 is his

paternal grandmother having agricultural land to an extent of Acs.9.00

in Survey No.323/3 situated at Nandanam Revenue Village,

Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District. The petitioner’s grandmother

executed a registered gift deed on 19.01.2013 in favour of the

petitioner specifically stating that she had gifted away the subject

property to the petitioner, out of love and affection being her

grandson. She had also handed over the possession of the property

and entries to that effect were also made in the Pattadar Pass Book

and since then, the petitioner is in continuous possession and

enjoyment of the said land.

4.

While so, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.4

cancelled the gift deed by way of revocation deed after two years of

executing the gift and the same was registered by the respondent

No.3, vide Document No.1484 of 2015 dated 16.02.2025.

5.

Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel, would contend that

when the gift was accepted and the valuable rights have accrued on

the petitioner, the respondent No.4 has no power to revoke the gift

##PAGE3##

3

deed and the respondent No.3 has no authority under law to register

the same. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed

reliance upon the order of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

W.P.No.12552 of 2012 dated 27.06.2012, wherein this Court took note

of the relevant provision of law in Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta

v/s. The District Registrar, Srikakulam, 2012 (1) L.S. 329 and held that unilateral

cancellation of the document is untenable.

6.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, this Court, vide order

dated 01.05.2015, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on

date for a period of six weeks.

7.

During pendency of the Writ Petition, the respondent No.4 died on

01.06.2017. Her legal representatives – respondent Nos.5 and 6 were

brought on record vide order dated 18.09.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024.

Thereafter, though notices have been sent to the legal representatives

of the unofficial respondent No.4, respondent Nos.5 and 6, the same

were returned with an endorsement “no such person at this address”.

However, since the impugned registration of revocation of gift deed is

made unilaterally without issuing any notice to the affected party, the

same is liable to be set aside, and therefore, the matter can be

proceeded with, without the audience of the unofficial respondent

Nos.5 and 6.

##PAGE4##

4

8.

Even the official respondents, who are represented by the

Standing Counsel, did not file any counter, though nearly a decade had

elapsed from the date of filing of the Writ Petition.

9.

In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh and others2, it was held at para 5 as under:

5. In this connection, we may also refer

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