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) 76227

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
V. Krupa Sagar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 20110/2011



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.20110 OF 2011

DATE: 31.12.2025

V.Krupa Sagar and another

Petitioners

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented

by its Commissioner Registration and Stamps

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.

…Respondents

ORDER

Heard Ms.Bhavana Sagar, learned counsel representing

Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as

learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing respondent Nos.1

and 2 and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel representing Sri Mayur

Mudra, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the material

available on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the action of

respondent No.2 in unilaterally cancelling the registered Gift Settlement

##PAGE2##

2

Deed vide Doc.No.2165 of 2005, dated 07.07.2005 through

cancellation Deed of Gift Settlement vide Document No.0273 of 2007,

dated 03.02.2007 as illegal and to consequently set aside the same.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 is the elder

brother of the petitioner and, out of love and affection, respondent

No.3 executed an unconditional Gift Settlement Deed dated 07.07.2005

in petitioner’s favour, having registered the same in the office of

respondent No.2 vide No.2165 of 2005, transferring all rights, title, and

interest over the house bearing Nos.7-2-209/3 and 7-2-209/3/A,

admeasuring 72.00 sq. yards or 60.19 sq. meters, including the

common area of 20.00 sq. meters, situated at Ashok Colony, Sanath

Nagar, Hyderabad. The name of petitioner’s was mutated in Municipal

records. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 approached the

respondent No.2 seeking cancellation of the Gift Settlement which was

executed in favour of the petitioner, without informing the petitioner,

due to which, the respondent No.2 registered the cancellation deed of

the gift settlement dated 03.02.2007 without giving notice to the

affected parties. Therefore, it is contended that the proceedings of the

cancellation deed are contrary to law.

##PAGE3##

3

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3

contends that the petitioner is not looking after respondent No.3 and

that the respondent No.3 was subjected to physical and mental agony

and that there were certain disputes with respect to the Gift Settlement

Deed. Therefore, the representation made before the authority seeking

cancellation of the deed was legal.

5. I have given my earnest considerations and perused the record

under Section 26(i)(k)(i) of the A.P. Rules under the Registration Act,

which reads as under:

26 (i) (k) (i) The registering officer shall ensure at

the time of preparation for registration of cancellation

deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on

sale before him that such cancellation deeds are

executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the

previously registered conveyance on sale and that such

cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration

showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or

High Court or State or Central Government annulling the

transaction contained in the previously registered deed of

conveyance on sale:

Provided that the registering officer shall dispense

with the execution of cancellation deeds by executants

and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of

conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed

is executed by a Civil Judge or a government officer

competent to execute government orders declaring the

properties contained in the previously registered

conveyance on sale to be government or assigned or

endowment lands or properties not registerable by any

provision of law.”

##PAGE4##

4

6. Admittedly, the respondents have not put on any notice.

Therefore, in view of the settled position of law as held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Thota Ganga Laxmi V.

Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 15 SCC 207, that the

Sub-Registrar/respondent No.2 has no power to cancel the gift

settlement deed without followi

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