JUDGMENT : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. 1. Same point is raised in these two writ petitions and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. I will narrate the facts in W.P. (C) No. 29330/2014 first: The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent herein refused to register a cancellation deed executed by them stating that the judgment of this Court prohibits registration of such a document. The petitioners herein own 24.25 cents of property in Alankode Amsom, Panthavoor Desom. They purchased the property by way of document No. 315/1976 from one Thottathuvalappil Abdurahiman Haji. The petitioners have constructed a house in the above property and are residing in the above property. It is submitted that the petitioners, out of their love and affection to their son Mr. Faisal, executed a gift deed in his favour, as per Ext.P1. It is the specific case of the petitioners that though the gift deed was executed, the petitioners did not inform the same to their son Mr. Faisal, who is the beneficiary of the above deed, and hence, mutation of the property was also not effected in the name of Mr. Faisal. It is submitted that even after the execution of the gift deed, the petitioners herein are paying basic tax to the property in their name. The petitioners produced Exts.P2 to P4 to prove the same. Now the petitioners’ son is married and after his marriage, the petitioners’ son does not have any love and affection towards the petitioners, is the submission. According to the petitioners, their son is leading an extravagant life and is selling all the properties in his possession. It is also submitted that if the petitioners’ son comes to know about the execution of Ext.P1 document, he may sell the same and the petitioners will be thrown to the streets. Hence, it has become very much necessary that Ext.P1 settlement deed be cancelled. It is also submitted that since Mr. Faisal has not accepted the above gift, the above deed is not valid. Hence the petitioners drafted a cancellation deed and approached the 2nd respondent for execution of the cancellation deed to cancel Ext.P1 settlement deed. Ext.P5 is the cancellation deed. It is also submitted that since Mr. Faisal has not accepted the above gift, the above deed is not valid. Hence the petitioners drafted a cancellation deed and approached the 2nd respondent for execution of the cancellation deed to cancel Ext.P1 settlement deed. Ext.P5 is the cancellation deed. On receipt of the above document, the 2nd respondent took a stand that the above document cannot be registered because of the dictum laid down by this Court. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners contended that the judgment mentioned by the 2nd respondent is only applicable to a sale deed that was executed, which is admittedly a bilateral contract and that the above principle is not applicable to a gift deed which is a unilateral contract. The petitioners also contended that, this Court, in Ext.P7 judgment, already decided the same issue and directed the 2nd respondent to register the same in a similar factual situation. Hence this writ petition is filed with following prayers: (i) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to register the Ext.P5 cancellation deed produced by the petitioner. (ii) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioners may pray from time to time. (SIC) 2. W.P. (C) No. 37443/2016 is filed with following prayers: (i) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to register the cancellation deed, cancelling the Ext.P1 document which would be produced by the petitioner. (ii) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioners may pray from time to time. (SIC) 3. The petitioner herein is the co-owner of 39 cents of property comprising in Resurvey No. 11/11 in Nannamukku Amsom, Thekkummuri desom of Nannamukku Village along with his wife Ayishabeevi. The property originally belonged to one Ammalu Amma. The said property was purchased by Vellakkadayil Nasar and Vellakkadayil Muhammed by way of Document No. 885/1992 of SRO Edappal. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the half right of Vellakadayil Nasar by way of Document No. 4163/1999 of SRO Edappal. The petitioner’s wife purchased the right of Vellakkadayil Muhammed by way of Document No. 2178/2001 of SRO Edappal. The said property was purchased by Vellakkadayil Nasar and Vellakkadayil Muhammed by way of Document No. 885/1992 of SRO Edappal. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the half right of Vellakadayil Nasar by way of Document No. 4163/1999 of SRO Edappal. The petitioner’s wife purchased the right of Vellakkadayil Muhammed by way of Document No. 2178/2001 of SRO Edappal. Thereby the entire 39 cents of property owned and possessed by Ammalu Amma was purchased by the petitioner and his wife, is the submission. The petitioner and his wife have 3 daughters, namely, Afra, Arifa and Asmabi. Since the petitioner and his wife have no male children, they understood that after their death the property will not be completely inherited by their children. So, in order to overcome the above aspect and to see that the petitioner’s children inherit the property completely on their death, the petitioner herein and his wife Ayishabeevi executed a gift deed bequeathing the property in the name of their daughters as per Ext.P1 document. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though such a gift deed was executed by the petitioner and his wife, the same was not acted upon and the gift was not accepted by their children. Even in the document, they had reserved a right of residence until their death, is the submission. As the gift was not accepted by the donees, the gift is not complete, is the further submission. It is also submitted that tax is also paid by the petitioner and his wife, as evident by Exts.P2 and P3. 4. It is submitted that after the execution of the gift deed, the petitioner and his wife were in need of some money in the year 2008. Hence the petitioner and his wife sold some extent of the property by way of another document with respect to the same property about which a gift deed was registered. Ext.P4 is the document. It is submitted that Exts.P2 to P4 would clearly show that the gift deed executed was not known to his daughters and it was not acted upon. There was no transfer of possession or acceptance of gift by the donee because they themselves were not aware of the above transaction. The matter being so, the petitioner and his wife became age old and they themselves found it difficult to manage their affairs, is the further submission. There was no transfer of possession or acceptance of gift by the donee because they themselves were not aware of the above transaction. The matter being so, the petitioner and his wife became age old and they themselves found it difficult to manage their affairs, is the further submission. The petitioner’s wife used to visit the houses of her daughters and stays along with them, is the submission. However, the petitioner herein was not fond of staying with the daughters abroad or at their native. The petitioner, being unable to manage his affairs alone, he decided to get remarried. It is also submitted that it was not objected to by his wife either. Hence he got remarried. Both the wives were living together under the same roof. But later there emerged some dispute between his two wives and the 1st wife of the petitioner Ayishabeevi started residing separately from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner herein has no property other than the above property covered by Ext.P1. Though an extent of 20.85 cents was transferred by the petitioner and his wife, the remaining 19 cents of property still stands in the name of the petitioner and his wife jointly. But the petitioner’s wife, due to the enmity with the petitioner, is trying to create other documents with respect to the above property in their possession, is the grievance of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner herein desired to cancel the gift since it was already registered. According to the petitioner, practically the gift stands cancelled because after the execution of the gift, Ext.P4 document was executed, selling some portion of the property to strangers. But to avoid any documents being registered or any impediment being caused by the petitioner’s wife Ayishabeevi, the petitioner desired to cancel Ext.P1 gift to complete the procedure of cancellation of a registered document. But the 2nd respondent is of the opinion that the above gift could be cancelled only if the donees also sign the above document and it could be done only with their consent. The 2nd respondent also relied on the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 37150/2009, prohibiting registration of such a document. The petitioner relied on Ext.P5 judgment of this Court and submitted that the cancellation deed is to be registered. But the same is not entertained by the 2nd respondent. Hence this writ petition. 5. The 2nd respondent also relied on the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 37150/2009, prohibiting registration of such a document. The petitioner relied on Ext.P5 judgment of this Court and submitted that the cancellation deed is to be registered. But the same is not entertained by the 2nd respondent. Hence this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 6. The short point raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that whether unilateral cancellation of a gift deed is possible based on the statement of the donor that the donee is not aware of the execution of the gift. It is an admitted fact that the donee is not made a party in these writ petitions. This Court specifically asked the petitioners’ counsel about the reason for not making the donee as a party. The case of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that if donee is made as a party, they would contend that the gift deed is genuine and the gift is complete. According to the petitioners, in the light of the tax receipt produced by them, it is clear that there is no delivery of property to the donee or acceptance of the gift from the donee. Therefore donee is not a necessary party, is the contention. 7. The petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 15803/2014. This Court perused the above judgment. No dictum is laid down in that judgment. Based on the factual situation in that case, certain directions were issued. The same is not applicable in all cases. If the prayers in these writ petitions are to be allowed, this Court has to believe the words of the petitioners that the donee was not aware of the gift deeds executed by the petitioners. This Court has to accept the contention of the petitioners that there was no delivery of property or acceptance of the gift from the side of the donee. A court of law cannot presume things based on the contentions of one party alone and that also, behind the back of the other party. The symbol of justice is often represented by a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword. The scales represent impartiality and the obligation of the law to weigh the evidence presented to the court by both sides. The symbol of justice is often represented by a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword. The scales represent impartiality and the obligation of the law to weigh the evidence presented to the court by both sides. It is the duty of the court to hear both sides when a case is adjudicated. Of course, if there is no prejudice to the opposite party or if no right of the opposite side is infringed if an order is passed, the court may pass orders exparte. But if there is any remote chance of affecting the right of a party, no court can pass any orders without hearing that party. 8. Whether there is delivery of property or acceptance by the donee as far as the gift deed is concerned are all matters of evidence. In such a situation, without making the donee as a party, this Court cannot direct the Registrar to register a cancellation of a gift deed unilaterally by the donor. The petitioners are not ready to implead the donee in these writ petitions stating that the donee is not aware of the gift deed. No court of law can presume that the donee is not aware of the execution of the gift deed based on the statement of donor alone. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the prayers in these writ petitions to issue a direction to the registering authority to register the cancellation deed of the gift deed unilaterally cannot be entertained. 9. Upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in these writ petitions. Therefore the writ petitions are dismissed.