ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The Court made the following common Order: As the parties, as well as the subject matter and question of facts and law involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order 2. W.P. No.17709/2016 The 1st petitioner is the husband, the 2nd petitioner is his wife and petitioners 3 and 4 are their daughter and son respectively. Succinctly their case is thus: (a) The 1st petitioner and 5th respondent are the sons of late Meka Krishna Murthy. The 4th respondent is the wife of Krishna Murthy and Mother of 1st petitioner and 5th respondent. (b) Pending writ petition, respondent No. 4 died and 10th respondent is impleaded as her LR. So also 5th respondent died and respondents 7 to 9 are impleaded as his LRs. (c) Petitioners' case is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.22.29 cents situated in R.S. No.368/1, 396/1B, 544/5, 377/1D, 378, 542/1 of Kadiyadda Village of Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 got their respective shares in the above said property in a partition among them, whereas the 2nd petitioner got her share through a registered settlement deed vide document No. 3480 of 1985 executed by her father-in-law late Krishna Murthy. Thus all the petitioners are owners of Ac.22.29 cents of agricultural land. Pattadar Passbooks (PPBs) and Title Deeds (TDs) were also issued to the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 on 15.04.1998 and to the 2nd petitioner on 26.08.1995. While so, respondents 4 and 5 approached the 2nd respondent seeking cancellation of their PPBs and TDs on the ground that they were issued on the basis of fake and bogus documents. The 2nd respondent vide his order 11.02.2013, having rightly observed that title disputes and allegations relating to forgery and allegations relating to fake documents can be decided only by civil Court, however has passed orders keeping the PPBs and TDs of the petitioners to be kept in abeyance till the civil Court decides the matter. (d) Aggrieved by the above order to the extent of keeping the PPBs and TDs in abeyance, the petitioners filed revision before 1st respondent U/s 9 of A.P Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "The Act, 1971'). (d) Aggrieved by the above order to the extent of keeping the PPBs and TDs in abeyance, the petitioners filed revision before 1st respondent U/s 9 of A.P Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short "The Act, 1971'). Respondents 4 and 5 also approached the 1st respondent contending that 2nd respondent ought to have cancelled the PPBs and TDs of the petitioners instead of keeping them in abeyance. In those revision petitions, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 28.04.2016 pronounced on 12.05.2016 canceling the PPBs and TDs of the petitioners, though holding that dispute of title and allegations relating to forgery and fraud cannot be decided by the revenue authorities except the civil Court. Having so held, the 1st respondent ought not to have cancelled the PBs and TDs of the petitioners which is unjust, illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence the writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition as follows: (a) The 4th respondent herein filed petition before RDO, Eluru / 2nd respondent stating that her elder son i.e., 5th respondent and younger son/1st petitioner and herself are the members of Joint Family. She stated that her father-in-law Meka Soma Raju @ Swami and his 6 sons executed registered partition deed vide document No. 5028, dated 19.12.1957 as per which the G- Schedule mentioned properties fell to the share of her husband. The G- schedule property was not partitioned between her and her sons after the expiry of her husband on 20.03.1999. Later she suggested her sons to partition the joint family properties. However, the 1st petitioner did not agree for proposed partition and obtained PPBs and TDs in the names of the petitioners. Hence the 4th respondent ultimately requested the authorities to cancel the PPBs and TDs which were obtained by the petitioners illegally. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 and conducted enquiry and verified the evidence produced by them. The 2nd respondent entertained doubt about the PPBs and TDs produced by the petitioners. The 2nd respondent observed that regarding the genuineness of the documents, civil Court is only competent to settle the matter and until then the PPBs and TDs shall be kept in abeyance. The 2nd respondent entertained doubt about the PPBs and TDs produced by the petitioners. The 2nd respondent observed that regarding the genuineness of the documents, civil Court is only competent to settle the matter and until then the PPBs and TDs shall be kept in abeyance. The 2nd respondent accordingly directed the 3rd respondent to take action and not to issue any fresh PPBs to any individuals in respect of the subject lands until finalization of the matter by the civil Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision Petition under Section 9 of Act 1971 before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent after hearing the parties held that the validity of the documents produced by the petitioners herein shall be decided only by the civil Court and held that PPBs and TDs which were already issued to the petitioners herein are to be cancelled. Accordingly, the revision filed by the respondents 4 and 5 was allowed with an advice to the parties to approach the civil Court to establish their right and title over the schedule property. Hence the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 4. Respondents 7 to 9 also field counters and opposed the Writ Petition. The properties are joint family properties and even on the request of 4th respondent, the 1st petitioner did not cooperate for partition and in the meanwhile by misrepresenting the revenue authorities obtained PPB and TDs. On her representation the 2nd respondent directed the parties to approach the civil Court and kept the Pattadar passbooks and title deeds in abeyance. Against the said order both parties filed revisions before the 1st respondent and after elaborate consideration of the facts and after hearing the parties, the 1st respondent advised the parties to approach the civil Court by cancelling the PPB and TDs. Therefore the writ petition is not maintainable as the properties are joint family properties and there was no partition. Unless the properties are partitioned, they cannot have exclusive right over the allotted properties. They prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. W.P. No.18629 of 2017 (a) The petitioner is the wife of one Meka Satyanarayana. The 3rd respondent Meka Soma Raju is the elder brother of petitioner's husband. During pendency of writ petition, 3rd respondent died and respondents 4 to 6 who are the wife, daughter and son of the 3rd respondent are impleaded as his LRs. 5. W.P. No.18629 of 2017 (a) The petitioner is the wife of one Meka Satyanarayana. The 3rd respondent Meka Soma Raju is the elder brother of petitioner's husband. During pendency of writ petition, 3rd respondent died and respondents 4 to 6 who are the wife, daughter and son of the 3rd respondent are impleaded as his LRs. (b) The petitioner herein is the 2nd petitioner in W.P No. 17709/2016. Her case is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.6.30 cents in Sy.No.544/5 and 396/1B of Kadiyadda Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District which she got under a registered settlement deed bearing No. 3480/1985, executed by her father-in-law Mekala Krishna Murthi. The said land and other lands are subject matter of registered partition deeds bearing No. 3177/1978 and 3178/1978 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Tadepalligudem. While so, the 3rd respondent who is the elder brother of her husband was enemically disposed towards them and at his instance the 1st respondent passed the impugned memo dated 03.05.2017 decided to cancel the document Nos. 3480/1985, 3177/1978 and 3178/1978 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Tadepalligudem on the ground that the subject properties are the Hindu Joint Family ancestral properties and they were alienated by the coparceners without partition, and without knowledge and consent of other coparceners by suppressing the facts and by providing false information and they were fraudulently registered by Meka Krishna Murthy and Meka Satyanarayana in favour of the petitioner and Mainam Veeranna and Mutukumilli Sri Ramulu respectively. The 1st respondent by the impugned order requested the Director and Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) Department, AP, Vijayawada to take necessary steps for cancellation of the aforesaid documents. (b) Challenging the said order of the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed contending that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such order of cancellation of registered documents. It is contended that if any person aggrieved by those documents, he has to approach the civil Court seeking for cancellation of the documents except that the respondent authorities have no right to cancel suo moto. 6. Respondents 3 to 5 filed counters opposing the writ petition. It is contended that the subject property belongs to Hindu Undivided Family consisting of Meka Krishna Murthy, his two sons Meka Satyanarayana and Meka Soma Raju and his daughter Akkena Dhana Lakshmi and they are the coparceners. 6. Respondents 3 to 5 filed counters opposing the writ petition. It is contended that the subject property belongs to Hindu Undivided Family consisting of Meka Krishna Murthy, his two sons Meka Satyanarayana and Meka Soma Raju and his daughter Akkena Dhana Lakshmi and they are the coparceners. There was no family partition among them. However the petitioner and her husband created some forged documents as if the petitioner got the subject land by a gift deed executed by Meka Krishna Murthy. Coming to know about the creation of such documents and alienations made by writ petitioner, Meka Soma Raju one of the coparceners gave a complaint dated 27.06.2016 to the registering authorities about the fraud played by the writ petitioner and sought for cancellation of the documents. Basing on the said complaint, the District Registrar issued notices to all the parties. The petitioner contended that there was a family partition between her father-in- law and his two sons on 06.11.1977. However she failed to place the relevant documents to prove the partition. Thereupon the District Registrar issued proceedings in letter No.G4/623/2016, dt: 06.03.2017 directing the parties to approach the civil Court. Thereupon M. Soma Raju made a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent / Director and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Vijayawada and the 2nd respondent made a detailed report to the Government for taking further action. The Government after careful examination of the matter, issued proceedings in Memo No. 32022/177/2017/REGN-1, dated 03.05.2017 cancelling the documents on the ground that the ancestral property was alienated by the coparceners without there being a partition and knowledge and consent of other coparceners and also by suppressing the facts and further held that the said registration was obtained fraudulently by the writ petitioner and her husband and alienated the property. Accordingly, the documents were cancelled. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Heard arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for unofficial respondents and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents. 8. Accordingly, the documents were cancelled. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Heard arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for unofficial respondents and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for official respondents. 8. Severely fulminating the order dated 14.02.2013 of the 2nd respondent/R.D.O., Eluru Division, Eluru insofar as the 2nd respondent directing the Tahasildar, Tadepalligudem to keep in abeyance the PPBs and TDs issued in favour of the petitioners and further directing him not to issue fresh PPBs to any individual in respect of subject land until finalization of the dispute in competent Court of law, learned Senior Counsel would argue that the petitioners are absolute owners of Ac.22.29 cents situated in R.S. No.368/1, 396/1B, 544/5, 377/1D, 378, 542/1 of Kadiyadda Village of Tadepalligudem Mandal as petitioner Nos. 1, 3 & 4 got to their extent, those lands in a partition among them whereas the 2nd petitioner got Ac.6.30 cents out of the said extent as per the registered settlement deed bearing document No. 3480/1985 executed by her late father-in-law Meka Krishna Murthy and they have been enjoying the said properties without any let or hindrance and TDs and PPBs were issued in their names long back and none others much less unofficial respondents can challenge those PPBs and TDs. Learned Senior Counsel would further argue that, however, on an appeal said to be filed with false averments by the 3rd respondent, the R.D.O., Eluru Division, though correctly came to conclusion that the allegations leveled in the appeal by the 3rd respondent that there was no partition of the joint family properties among the family members and that the gift deed is a fabricated one and that the TDs and PPBs obtained by the petitioners are not valid, etc., contentions have to be decided only by a civil Court, however, unjustly directed the Tahasildar to keep the TDs and PPBs of the petitioners in abeyance. Learned Senior Counsel would vehemently argue that against the issuance of TDs and PPBs no appeal is maintainable under Section 5-A of the Act 1971. He relied upon the decision in Ratnamma v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur, 2015(6)ALD609. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that as against the said order the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent. Learned Senior Counsel would vehemently argue that against the issuance of TDs and PPBs no appeal is maintainable under Section 5-A of the Act 1971. He relied upon the decision in Ratnamma v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur, 2015(6)ALD609. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that as against the said order the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent. Though, the 1st respondent took the view that the allegations of forgery etc., leveled by the respondents can be enquired and decided by a competent civil Court, however, erroneously directed that the PPBs and TDs issued to the petitioners have to be cancelled. Learned senior counsel would argue that the later part of the order is illegal and unsustainable. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that when the matter stood thus the Principal Secretary to Government has issued a memo dated 03.05.2017 basing on the report of the Director and Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) Department and instructed the said authority to take steps for cancellation of the settlement deed and other documents on the ground that those documents were executed without there being any partition. Learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the Government cannot unilaterally issue directions for cancellation of registered documents on the ground of a disputed fact relating to the partition. He would submit that the party aggrieved by those documents has to approach a competent civil Court for necessary orders. He thus prayed to set aside the impugned orders and restore the TDs and PPBs of the petitioners and also to restore the documents which were ordered to be cancelled. 9. Per contra, Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for unofficial respondents argued that the subject properties are the joint family properties belonging to the respondents 4 & 5 and 1st petitioner in the W.P. No.17709/2016 and there was no partition among them till date. However, the petitioners made a false claim that partition was affected and in such partition they have obtained the subject lands to their shares and a part of the subject lands was settled in favour of the 2nd petitioner by her late father- in-law Meka Krishna Murthy, and obtained TDS and PPBs from the concerned revenue authorities. However, the petitioners made a false claim that partition was affected and in such partition they have obtained the subject lands to their shares and a part of the subject lands was settled in favour of the 2nd petitioner by her late father- in-law Meka Krishna Murthy, and obtained TDS and PPBs from the concerned revenue authorities. On knowing this fact, the 4th respondent who is mother of the 1st petitioner and 4th respondent, filed a representation before the 2nd respondent and said authority after enquiry, directed the parties to approach before a competent civil Court for necessary orders and further directed that the TDs and PPBs clandestinely obtained by the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance. Learned counsel would further submit that on revision by the parties, the 1st respondent also expressed similar view, but however held that the TDs and PPBs shall be cancelled. Therefore, the orders of the respondents 1 & 2 in the backdrop of these facts are perfectly valid and hence W.P. No.17709/2016 is not sustainable. Learned counsel would further argue that in so far as W.P. No.18629/2017 is concerned, on the representation of Meka Somaraju, the brother of 1st petitioner in W.P. No.17709/2016, the Director and Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) Department submitted a report in his letters dated 22.03.2017 & 10.04.2017 to the Government stating that the settlement deed and other documents were brought forth by the writ petitioners without there being an actual partition of the joint Hindu ancestral property. The Principal Secretary to the Government has instructed the Director and Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) Department, to take necessary steps for cancellation of the fraudulent registered documents bearing Nos. 3480/1985, 3177/1978 and 3178/1978 of Sub-Registrar Office, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that since those documents were got registered by suppressing the material facts, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in W.P. No.18629/2017 have rightly decided to cancel those documents and there is no irregularity and illegality therein. He thus prayed to dismiss both the Writ Petitions. 10. Point for consideration is whether there are merits in Writ Petitions to allow? 11. Point: I have given thoughtful consideration to the facts and law proponed in the respective arguments of both the learned counsel. He thus prayed to dismiss both the Writ Petitions. 10. Point for consideration is whether there are merits in Writ Petitions to allow? 11. Point: I have given thoughtful consideration to the facts and law proponed in the respective arguments of both the learned counsel. The bone of contention between the parties is, as per writ petitioners, there was a family partition between Make Krishna Murthy and his sons and in the said partition, the petitioners one, 3 & 4 got some extent out of Ac.22.29 cents and 2nd petitioner is concerned, she got Ac.6.00 cents and odd of the land by virtue of registered gift deed executed by Meka Krishna Murthy vide document No. 3480/1985 and therefore, all the petitioners are the full owners and enjoyers of Ac.22.29 cents situated in R.S. No.368/1, 396/1B, 544/5, 377/1D, 378, 542/1 of Kadiyadda Village of Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District and they also got TDs and PPBs in the year 1998 itself and therefore the respondents cannot challenge the same. On the other hand, the contention of unofficial respondents in both the Writ Petitions is that there was never any partition between Meka Krishna Murthy and his sons and the petitioners have created forged documents to that effect and further Meka Krishna Murthy never executed any registered gift deed in favour of the his daughter-in-law. Since there was no partition, and as the said document is also forged one, those documents will not create any right, title and interest in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the authorities have rightly decided to cancel the TDs and PPBs on one hand and the bogus fraudulently registered document on the other. 12. On a careful scrutiny of question of facts and law, I find that the contention of the petitioners is formidable one. It appears, challenging the issuance of PPBs and TDs to the petitioners, the 4th respondent in W.P. No.17709/2016 filed an appeal petition seeking to cancel those TDs and PPBs on the main contention that herself and her two sons constituted a joint Hindu family and the joint family properties, have not been partitioned among them and though she advised for partition, her 2nd son/the 1st petitioner in W.P. No.17709/2016 did not cooperate and on the other hand they created some bogus documents and obtained PPBs and TDs. She thus prayed for cancellation of PPBs. She thus prayed for cancellation of PPBs. On the aspect as to whether an appeal is maintainable against the mere issuance of PPBs under Section 6A of the Act, 1997, law is no more res integra. In Ratnamma's case (Supra 1) of Division Bench of common High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held thus: "32. It is well settled that the right of appeal must find its source in legislative authority. The right of appeal accrues to the litigant when it is expressly provided for in the statute and axiomatic that the right of appeal is a substantive right and must be conferred by a statute. As already held, appeal is provided for against the original proceedings or substantive determination under Sections 4, 5 and 5-A of the Act. The Legislature in its wisdom and noticing the purpose of issuing PPB/TD did not provide right of appeal against mere issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act. Therefore, on the literal construction of Sections 3 to 6-A of the Act, it can be held that the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not provided against the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act. By treating the action under Sections 5 and 6-A of the Act as single or mutually dependent, in our considered view, the remedy of appeal against mere issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is not available. 33. For the above reasons, we are not in agreement with the view expressed in N. Bal Reddys case and is overruled. The point is answered accordingly. 34. In the fact situation of the present case the appeal filed in RC. No. (B)154/1999 is not maintainable against the issuance of PPB/TD to petitioner and accordingly held as not maintainable. As already observed, this Court has not examined the rival claims of parties on merits and the findings are limited to the extent of deciding the maintainability of appeal under Section 6-A of the Act in RC. No. (B)154/1999. The 3rd respondent is at liberty to pursue other available remedies under the Act or common law remedy, if the circumstances so warrant." 13. In that view, I find force in the argument of learned Senior Counsel for petitioners that the 2nd respondent ought not to have entertained the appeal filed by the 4th respondent. No. (B)154/1999. The 3rd respondent is at liberty to pursue other available remedies under the Act or common law remedy, if the circumstances so warrant." 13. In that view, I find force in the argument of learned Senior Counsel for petitioners that the 2nd respondent ought not to have entertained the appeal filed by the 4th respondent. However, it must be said that in the impugned order dated 11.02.2013 the 3rd respondent after conducting enquiry only observed that his is not the competent forum to decide about the genuinity of the documents and rights of the executants and only competent civil Court can decide about the dispute raised by the petitioners. To this extent he is right. However, the further order of the 3rd respondent in keeping the TDs and PPBs of the petitioners in abeyance, in my considered view is unsustainable. It should be noted that when it was opined that the rights of the parties and genuinity of the documents have to be decided by the civil Court alone, the 3rd respondent cannot further direct to keep the TDs and PPBs in abeyance because that would amount to suspecting the genuinity of the case of petitioners at that juncture without a clear pronouncement by the civil Court. On the same analogy it can be said that the order dated 12.05.2016 of the 1st respondent is also not sustainable. The said authority also, like the 2nd respondent held that issues raised by the parties shall be decided only by the civil Court. To this extent he is right, however, his further order in directing the PPBs and TDs issued in favour of the petitioners to be cancelled is illegal and unsustainable. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for respondent Sri Balaji Medimalli that one Akkina Dhanalakshmi who is the sister of Meka Satyanarayana and Meka Soma Raju filed O.S. No.17/2023 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku seeking partition of the joint family properties including the subject properties wherein all the issues involved in the present Writ Petitions are also the subject matter therein. The 1st petitioner in W.P. No.17709/2016 and respondents 4 to 6 in W.P. No.18629/2017 are parties in the said partition suit. Thus, it is clear that the competent civil Court has assumed jurisdiction in respect of the subject properties and other properties. The 1st petitioner in W.P. No.17709/2016 and respondents 4 to 6 in W.P. No.18629/2017 are parties in the said partition suit. Thus, it is clear that the competent civil Court has assumed jurisdiction in respect of the subject properties and other properties. Therefore, in my considered view while setting aside the orders of respondents 1 & 2 and restoring the PPBs and TDs issued in favour of the petitioners, the respondent authorities can be directed to keep the subject properties in the disputed registers meaning thereby, the subject properties in the Writ Petitions will stand in the name of the petitioners till disposal of the suit, but with a mentioning in the concerned records as well as in their original PPBs and TDs that the said property is a disputed property. Depending upon the result of the civil dispute, necessary corrections/modifications and changes can be affected in the concerned records regarding the subject property and other related properties. 14. So far as W.P. No.18629/2017 is concerned it goes without saying that the respondent authorities have no power to cancel the registered documents on the ground, as if the subject property therein was ancestral property of Hindu joint family and the same was alienated by the coparceners without partition, knowledge and consent of the said coparceners by suppressing the facts with false information. Needless to emphasize that whether the subject properties were partitioned or not and whether the documents were brought forth without the knowledge of the coparceners etc., facts can be decided only by civil Court and not by the respondent authorities. Therefore, Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 15. In the result W.P. No.17709/2016 is allowed setting aside the order in Roc.No.3728/2012/A dated 11.02.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 24.04.2016 (pronounced on 12.05.2016) by the 1st respondent with a direction to restore the Title Deeds and Pattadar Passbooks of the petitioners with a mentioning in the concerned TDs and PPBs as well as revenue records that the subject property is a disputed property in O.S. No.17/2023 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku. Petitioners shall produce their Title Deeds and Pattadar Passbooks before the Tahasildar, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for making the above endorsements. Petitioners shall produce their Title Deeds and Pattadar Passbooks before the Tahasildar, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for making the above endorsements. The said endorsements on all the aforesaid documents shall be subject to the result of O.S. No.17/2023 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku. (ii) W.P. No.18629/2017 is allowed and the order in proceedings in Memo No. 32022/177/2017/Regn.I, dated 03.05.2017 of the 1st respondent instructing the 2nd respondent to take steps for cancellation of the documents bearing No. 3480/1985, 3177/1970 and 3178/1978 of Sub-Registrar Office, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District is hereby set aside with the observation that the validity of these documents shall be subject to the result in O.S. No.17/2023 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending in these Writ Petitions are stand closed.