JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. - This writ appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order 28/9/2022 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.No.1198 of 2022, quashing proceedings Roc.No.5454/2017/A6 dtd. 30/12/2021 and consequently issuing certain directions in paragraph 57 of the order. 2. The dispute between the parties pertains to ownership and mutation of name over building bearing Door No.20/2/268/A2 (Assessment No.1012035118) situated at Koriagunta/Maruthi Nagar, Chittoor District. Ownership certificate of the said building was issued in favour of Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy, who died on 14/2/2007, leaving behind the writ petitioner and two minor children. The 3. rd respondent/appellant filed a petition before the Tirupati Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred as "the Corporation") on 29/7/2017 claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of the building as per the registered settlement deed document No.712806 dtd. 14/11/2006, i.e. the gift deed by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy in favour of her husband late Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy, who was none other than the own brother of Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy. On the basis of this gift deed, 3 rd respondent/appellant claimed absolute ownership and requested to mutate her name, upon which the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in her favour on 8/8/2017. 3. It appears, the writ petitioner claimed that after the death of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy on 7/6/2010, the owner Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy vide registered deed of revocation dtd. 7/9/2010, revoked/cancelled the gift deed dtd. 14/11/2006; however, this fact of cancellation of gift deed was not brought to the notice of the Corporation. 4. It appears, the 3rd respondent/appellant filed O.S.No.199 of 2015 against Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy seeking partition of the building. However, the suit was withdrawn, but she again filed O.S.No.458 of 2017 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for permanent injunction based on the order of mutation dtd. 8/8/2017. The writ petitioner claimed to be aware of the mutation in the name of the 3rd respondent/appellant from the summons of the suit served upon her. The writ petitioner, thereafter, moved representation before the Corporation and filed W.P.No.45043 of 2017, in which initially an interim order was passed against the 3rd respondent/appellant. The writ petitioner preferred another writ petition, W.P.No.19220 of 2021 seeking direction to the Corporation to pass final orders on her representation. The writ petitioner, thereafter, moved representation before the Corporation and filed W.P.No.45043 of 2017, in which initially an interim order was passed against the 3rd respondent/appellant. The writ petitioner preferred another writ petition, W.P.No.19220 of 2021 seeking direction to the Corporation to pass final orders on her representation. Both these writ petitions were disposed of by common order dtd. 22/2/2021 directing the Corporation to pass final orders after issuing notice to both the parties. The Corporation, thereafter, passed final order on 30/12/2021 directing mutation in favour of the 3rd respondent/appellant. It is this order which was called in question in the writ petition. 5. The 3rd respondent/appellant contended before the learned single Judge that Northern part of the building was purchased by her husband Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy and only Southern part of the building was purchased by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy, which too after the execution of the gift deed by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy on 14/11/2006, came in the ownership of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy, who became owner of the entire property owned by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy. It is specifically contended that registered gift deed dtd. 14/11/2006 could not be revoked or cancelled, vide document dtd. 7/9/2010, and that too, after the death of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy on 7/6/2010. 6. One of the contentions of the writ petitioner is that the order dtd. 30/12/2021 of the Corporation cannot be sustained as it is based upon the gift deed dtd. 14/4/2006 executed by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy in favour of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy, which has already been cancelled by subsequent deed of cancellation dtd. 7/9/2010 and that unilateral cancellation of gift deed was perfectly legal. Then, it was argued by the writ petitioner that the Corporation has no jurisdiction to hold the deed of cancellation of the gift contrary to law or to observe that it is for the writ petitioner to approach the civil court; instead, it is for the 3rd respondent/appellant. 7. Per contra, it is the case of the 3rd respondent/appellant that gift deed could not be revoked after the death of Sri B. Madan Mohan Reddy; therefore, the Corporation has rightly passed order basing on the gift deed dtd. 14/11/2006. 8. The learned single Judge, having noted the provisions contained in Ss. 7. Per contra, it is the case of the 3rd respondent/appellant that gift deed could not be revoked after the death of Sri B. Madan Mohan Reddy; therefore, the Corporation has rightly passed order basing on the gift deed dtd. 14/11/2006. 8. The learned single Judge, having noted the provisions contained in Ss. 122, 123 and 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, "the TP Act") and having noticed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Renikuntla Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma - (2014) 9 SCC 45, K. Bala Krishnan v. K. Kamalam - (2004) 1 SCC 581 , as also Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker - (1997) 2 SCC 255 , Aasokan v. Lakshmikutty and others (2007) 13 SCC 210 , S. Sarojini Amma v. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar - (2019) 11 SCC 391 and Thota Ganga Laxmi and anr. V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. - (2010) 15 SCC 207 and also considering the judgment of this Court in Chellu Boyina Nagaraju v. Molleti Ramudu and anr. - Second Apeal No.216 of 2020 (decided on 13/4/2022), to the effect that cancellation of gift deed unilaterally by donor is contrary to the rules under the Registration Act, as such cancellation does not extinguish the right of the donee, allowed the writ petition. 9. The learned single Judge referred to the judgment in P. Veda Kumari and ors. v. The Sub Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and ors. - (2017) 5 ALT 614 , wherein this Court held that unilateral execution of a document of deed of cancellation cancelling the registered document and registration of the same by the registering authority prior to amendment of Rule 26(k) of the A.P. Registration Rules, 1960, can be validly done by the registering authority and the aggrieved party can challenge such action; whereas, after the amendment, the registering authority cannot register a document of cancellation without following the amended Rule 26(k) of the Rules. However, learned single Judge proceeds to observe that the proposition of law in P. Veda Kumari (supra) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and anr (supra) with further observation that in P. Veda Kumar (supra), there was no consideration on the effect of Sec. 126 of the TP Act, on the point of revocation of gift and also that the subject cancellation dtd. 7/9/2010 being later than the amendment of Rule 26(k) of the Rules, the judgment in P. Veda Kumari (supra) is of no help to the writ petitioner. However, at the same time, learned single Judge has negatived the contention of the 3rd respondent/appellant that gift deed cannot be cancelled. 10. Strangely, learned single Judge has observed in paragraph 45 of the order impugned that execution of gift deed dtd. 14/11/2006 by Mr. B. Madan Mohan Reddy in favour of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy is admitted to both the sides. However, it is later on observed by learned single Judge that determination of title of the parties is not solely dependent upon this document, as the gift deed has been cancelled. In our considered view, learned single Judge is not correct in holding that even if it be taken that the gift deed dtd. 14/11/2006 was valid and its cancellation dtd. 7/9/2010 was contrary to law, further question that would require consideration would be as to upon whom the ownership should devolve on the death of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy. If the gift deed cannot be cancelled, the property would vest to be owned by Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy by virtue of the gift deed dtd. 14/11/2006; therefore, once it is taken that registered gift deed cannot be cancelled, that too, unilaterally after the death of Mr. B. Giribabu Reddy, law tilts more favourably towards the 3rd respondent/appellant. 11. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that the registered gift deed suffered from any of the infirmities as provided under Sec. 126 of the TP Act, validating the revocation of the gift. Therefore, in the absence of any such allegation by the writ petitioner, prima facie, the gift deed could not have been cancelled. 12. In K. Bala Krishnan (supra), it has been held that a gift having been duly accepted in law and thus being complete, it is irrevocable under Sec. 126 of the TP Act, which prohibits revocation of a validly executed gift except in circumstances mentioned therein. Applying this ratio to the facts of the case, it was not competent for the donor to have cancelled the gift and executed will in relation to the gifted property. Therefore, we are of the prima face view that the learned single Judge ought not to have set aside the proceedings Roc.No.5454/2017/A6 dtd. Applying this ratio to the facts of the case, it was not competent for the donor to have cancelled the gift and executed will in relation to the gifted property. Therefore, we are of the prima face view that the learned single Judge ought not to have set aside the proceedings Roc.No.5454/2017/A6 dtd. 30/12/2021 and issued further directions as mentioned in paragraph 57 of the order impugned. 13. Accordingly, we set aside the order impugned of the learned single Judge dtd. 28/9/2022. However, we observe that the proceedings dtd. 30/12/2021 shall remain subject to the outcome of the decision of the civil court if the writ petitioner approaches the civil court for declaration of her title. 14. Writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.