Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1507 (TS)

Raziaya Ansari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2025-11-14

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. Heard Sri N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of official respondents and Sri V.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 5 th respondent in both the Writ Petitions, and perused the record. 2. W.P.No.10523 of 2014 is filed assailing the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in registering the Cancellation Deed vide Doc.No.738 of 2014 dated 13.03.2014 as illegal and arbitrary with a consequential direction to set aside the same. 3. W.P.No.10524 of 2014 is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in registering the Cancellation Deed vide Doc.No.730 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014 as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to set aside the same. 4. Since, the issue involved and the facts are similar in both the Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.10523 of 2014 5. The facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.10523 of 2014 are that originally, the petitioner’s paternal grandmother by name Smt.Akheelunnisa purchased the schedule property bearing Flat No.B2/F4, M.C.H. No.3-4-864/5, Ground Floor admeasuring 920.00 sq. ft. along with undivided share of land of 36.00 sq. yard, situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad under a registered sale deed on 21.03.1986 from the A.P. Housing Board. Subsequently, the said Smt.Akheelunnisa, out of love and affection towards the petitioner, had gifted the schedule property in favour of the petitioner on 07.08.2006 under a registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.3071 of 2006 and handed over possession along with all link documents, and the petitioner accepted the gift and possession. The 5 th respondent herein is the one of the witnesses to the said Gift Settlement Deed. 6. After the demise of Smt.Akheelunnisa on 04.07.2012, the 5 th respondent, who is the grandfather of the petitioner, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, unilaterally cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.738 of 2014 on 13.03.2014. 7. The 5 th respondent herein is the one of the witnesses to the said Gift Settlement Deed. 6. After the demise of Smt.Akheelunnisa on 04.07.2012, the 5 th respondent, who is the grandfather of the petitioner, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, unilaterally cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.738 of 2014 on 13.03.2014. 7. Aggrieved by the said cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed, the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing W.P.No.10523 of 2014 stating that the 5 th respondent has nothing to do with the subject property and without having any right, title or interest over the property, after seven years of execution of Gift Settlement Deed, unilaterally cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed and the official respondents entertained the same by registering the document. 8. Petitioner further contends that once the document is executed and registered, subsequently the same cannot be unilaterally cancelled as per Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the A.P. Rules under Registration Act. Petitioner therefore contends that the Gift Settlement Deed was executed by the original owner i.e. grandmother of the petitioner and that the 5 th respondent, who is petitioner’s grandfather, without any right, had unilaterally cancelled the same against the settled principle of law. 9. The 4 th respondent Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Hyderabad filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the Writ Petition. However, it is stated that cancellation of Registered Gift Settlement was registered on 13.03.2014 by following the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad vide Memo dated 18.07.2008. It is further submitted that there were instructions from the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad, through which it was ordered that Rule 26(k) of the Registration Rules is applicable for the previously registered Deeds of conveyance on sale only, but not for the deeds of Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA, Development of Agreement-cum-GPA, Partition Releases and Mortgages etc, and in view of the aforesaid Memo, any document other than the Deed of Conveyance of sale can be cancelled and registered, if they were executed unilaterally since amendment for Registration Rule 26(k) was not made applicable to those documents. Therefore, the 4 th respondent contended that keeping in view of the Circular orders dated 18.07.2008, the deed of Cancellation of Gift Settlement dated 13.03.2014 presented by the 5 th respondent was registered and the same is in accordance with the prevailing instructions issued by the Department from time to time. 10. The counsel for the 5 th respondent contend that the Registering Authority cannot go into the validity of title or disputes between the parties, and that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner herein is to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration and consequential reliefs. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , [ (2016) 10 SCC 767 ] 11. On the other hand, the 6 th respondent contended that cancellation deed dated 13.03.2014 was registered in accordance with the Circular instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps , A.P., Hyderabad dated 08.07.2008, and the said Memo clarifies that Rule 26(k) of the A.P. Registration Rules, 1908 applies to conveyance deeds on sale and not to gift deeds, Development Agreements, GPAs, or partition deeds, and as such, the Sub-Registrar has rightly registered the deed of Cancellation within his lawful authority. 12. The 6 th respondent further contended that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the dispute between the parties pertains to civil rights arising out of an alleged cancellation of a registered instrument, and that the petitioner herein has an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent Civil Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. W.P.No.10524 of 2014 13. The facts leading to filing of W.P.No.10524 of 2014 are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property i.e. Flat No.B2/F3 in Municipal No.3-4-864/6, on First Floor admeasuring 920 sq. ft. along with undivided share of land of 36.00 sq. yards situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that originally, the 5 th respondent purchased the said property from one B.Narayan Reddy under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1851 of 2002 dated 27.06.2002, who in turn purchased the same the A.P. Housing Board under registered sale deed dt.11.06.2002. 15. yards situated at Errannagutta, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that originally, the 5 th respondent purchased the said property from one B.Narayan Reddy under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1851 of 2002 dated 27.06.2002, who in turn purchased the same the A.P. Housing Board under registered sale deed dt.11.06.2002. 15. It is further contended that the 5 th respondent, paternal grandfather of the petitioner, out of love and affection towards the petitioner, had gifted the schedule property in favour of the petitioner under a registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 07.08.2006 and handed over possession along with link documents and the petitioner had accepted the gift and possession, and since then, the petitioner has become the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property. The grandmother of the petitioner is one of the attesting witnesses to the said Gift Settlement Deed. 16. It is further contended that on 28.03.2014, the agents of the 5 th respondent visited the schedule property to purchase the same, but the 5 th respondent has no right whatsoever to sell or alienate or create any charge in respect of the schedule property, and on enquiry, the petitioner herein came to know that the 5 th respondent, who is her grandfather, without any title or interest, unilaterally cancelled the Gift Settlement Deed dated 07.08.2006 and the same was registered vide Doc.No.730 of 2014 and the official respondents, without the consent of the petitioner, unilaterally registered the same. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the decisions in Thota Ganga Laxmi Vs. Government of A.P. , [ (2010) 15 SCC 207 ] by referring to para Nos.4 and 5,wherein it was held that a sale deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally, and that cancellation of deed cannot be registered without the declaration of a competent Court and that the sale deed can be cancelled only after notice to the parties concerned. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decisions in Haji Mohammed Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2011 SCC OnLine AP 724] , Gaddam Laxmaiah Vs. Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps , [2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 815] , N.Sudeshkumar Vs. Office of Registrar and Stamps , [2012 SCC OnLine AP 91] Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta Vs. District Registrar , [2012 SCC OnLine AP 61] , Fazal Ullah Khan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2011 SCC OnLine AP 724] , Gaddam Laxmaiah Vs. Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps , [2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 815] , N.Sudeshkumar Vs. Office of Registrar and Stamps , [2012 SCC OnLine AP 91] Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta Vs. District Registrar , [2012 SCC OnLine AP 61] , Fazal Ullah Khan Vs. State of A.P , [2012 SCC OnLine AP 473] ., Kolli Rajesh Chowdary Vs. State of A.P. , [2019 SCC OnLine AP 18] , Kasi Gounder Vs. Chinnapaiya Gounder , [2001 SCC OnLIne Mad 464] , Abdul Rahim Vs. Sk.Abdul Zabar , [ (2009) 6 SCC 160 ] , Pagadala Bharathi Vs. J.Radha Krishna , [2012 SCC OnLine AP 370] , Nakka Parthasarathy Vs. Nakka Krishnaveni , [2013 SCC OnLine AP 688] and judgment of this Court in G.Ganga Lakshmi Vs. The State of Telangana and others , [Order dated 22.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.27204 of 2015.] 19. The petitioner therefore contends that the cancellation of registered Gift Settlement Deed unilaterally is in violation of law. 20. The 6 th respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that he executed the registered Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed on 12.03.2014 revoking the registered Gift Settlement Deed previously executed vide Doc.No.3070 of 2006 in favour of the petitioner and got the said Cancellation Deed registered as Doc.No.730 of 2014. 21. It is further contended that the 6 th respondent has got the Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed registered as there is no prohibition against its registration if executed unilaterally without the consent of the other parties to the Gift Settlement Deed. 22. It is further contended that the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of approaching the competent Civil Court. 23. The counsel for the 6 th Respondent contends that Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the A.P Rules is not violated. 22. It is further contended that the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of approaching the competent Civil Court. 23. The counsel for the 6 th Respondent contends that Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the A.P Rules is not violated. Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the A.P Rules states 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 executant 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.” Learned counsel for the respondent contends that from the above rule it is clear that the provision is applicable only to conveyance of the sale. 24. This Court without going into the merits of the matter, is of the view of that the settled position of law is that once a document is executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. The only recourse available to the aggrieved party under law is to approach the competent Civil Court by way of filing a suit for appropriate relief. 25. In the above context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thota Ganga Laxmi ( supra) and batch, held : “ 5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(k)(i) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 … … …. Rule also supports the observations we have made above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned. Rule also supports the observations we have made above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions.” 26. Admittedly, the Registering Authority has no power to cancel the Gift Settlement Deed unilaterally without following the due procedure and without issuing any notice to the affected parties. Even if a competent Civil Court passes a decree, the cancellation can be done by the Registrar only after issuing notice and following due procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the registration of cancellation deeds vide Doc.No.730 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014 and Doc.No.738 of 2014 dated 13.03.2014. However, the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to redress their grievances, if any. 27. Accordingly, the registration of cancellation deeds vide Doc.No.730 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014 and Doc.No.738 of 2014 dated 13.03.2014 are set aside. 28. Subject to above observation and direction, these Writ Petitions are allowed. 29. Interim orders granted, if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.