ORDER : Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the material on record. 2. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent Nos.5 to 8. 3. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in registering the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.2219/2013 dated 07.05.2013 executed by the Donor Sri T. Janardhan Rao unilaterally without the consent of the Donee/petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to cancel the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed bearing Doc.No.2219/2013 dated 07.05.2013 in respect of the property bearing Flat No.B2/F2, situated at 1 st Floor, Municipal No.10-3-444/6, admeasuring 909.80 sq. ft at PS Nagar, Hyderabad (For brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner by name Sri T. Janardhan Rao has purchased the schedule property from the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board through registered sale deed dated 20.03.2001 under Registration No.790 of 2001 and thereafter he has executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the petitioner through Doc.No.43 of 2008 dated 03.01.2008 and delivered the vacant physical possession of the said property in her favour. The petitioner got mutated her name in the municipal records as per the order dated 22.12.2008. The father of petitioner died intestate in the year, 2016 leaving behind the petitioner and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 as legal heirs. After mutation, the petitioner has obtained loan from the Union Bank of India by mortgaging the said property, she got released the same on repayment of the entire loan amount and the Union Bank of India has executed a Release Deed bearing Doc.No.789 of 2019 dated 04.02.2019 in her favour. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has sold the subject property to the respondent No.8 through registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1141/2019 dated 18.02.2019 and delivered physical possession and the respondent No.8 got his name mutated in the municipal records as per the proceedings dated 17.09.2019 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. When the respondent No.8 has approached the Bank for sanction of loan by mortgaging the subject property, it came to light that a Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed was executed by the father of petitioner in Doc.No.2219/2013 on the file of the respondent No.3 dated 07.05.2013. He submits that the said document is a unilateral cancellation/revocation without the consent of the petitioner and even without making her as party to the said document. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 has registered the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed unilaterally in violation of principles of natural justice and against Rule 26(i)(k) of the Telangana Rules under Registration Act, 1908 and he has not taken into consideration the Circular Order issued by the respondent No.2 dated 25.08.2008, wherein all the Sub- Registrars were directed not to register the unilateral cancellation. He submits that as per Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a gift cannot be suspended or revoked unless and until agreed by both the Donor and the Donee and in the instant case, without the consent of the Donee/petitioner, the respondent No.3 has registered the subject document and requested to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to cancel the subject document. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgments; 1. Thota Ganga Laxmi vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 15 SCC 207 . 2. K. Gopi Vs. Sub-Registrar, 2025 SCC Online SC 740 3. Kaitha Narasimha vs. The State of A.P., (2017) 4 ALD 12 4. Ediga Chandrasekar Gowd vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2017) 4 ALD 12 5. Kasani Subba Rao vs. Puli Radhakrishna Murthy, 2024 (3) ALD 603 (AP) 6. Veena Singh (dead) through legal representative vs. District Registrar/Additional Collector, 2022) 7 SCC 1 7. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs. S.P.Velayutham, (2022) 8 SCC 210 8. Peram Radhika Kiran vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Unreported Judgment in W.P.No.13939 of 2022 dated 24.10.2024. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader based on the counter submits that the Document No.1141/2019 was registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Golconda since the property in question falls under the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar, Golconda. S.P.Velayutham, (2022) 8 SCC 210 8. Peram Radhika Kiran vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Unreported Judgment in W.P.No.13939 of 2022 dated 24.10.2024. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader based on the counter submits that the Document No.1141/2019 was registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Golconda since the property in question falls under the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar, Golconda. The registration of Revocation of the Gift Settlement Deed by the respondent No.3 was within the ambit of the Registration Act, 1908 and as per Section 30 of the Registration Act, 1908, any Registrar may at his discretion receive and register any document which might be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him and by virtue of said Section, the respondent No.3 was within his right to register the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed, however the said Section was in force till 30.05.2017 and it was dispensed with by the then Government. She submits that as per the amendment to Registration Rule 26(i)(k), the unilateral cancellation of deed is applicable only to conveyance of sale and there is no embargo for unilateral cancellation of other deeds. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the registration of the revocation of the earlier gift deed was proper and the Registering Officer has carried out his duties as per law and followed the instructions of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the unilateral execution of Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No.2219/2013 dated 07.05.2013 pertaining to the suit schedule property. The contention of the petitioner is that her father namely Sri T. Janardhan Rao has registered the Gift Settlement Deed in her favour through Document No.43 of 2008 dated 03.01.2008 for the said property and her name was mutated in the Municipal records on 22.12.2008. The contention of the petitioner is that her father namely Sri T. Janardhan Rao has registered the Gift Settlement Deed in her favour through Document No.43 of 2008 dated 03.01.2008 for the said property and her name was mutated in the Municipal records on 22.12.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner has obtained loan from the Union Bank of India by mortgaging the said property through registered document No.1552/2009 dated 13.05.2009 on the file of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Golconda, Hyderabad to secure the repayment of housing loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and thereafter, the petitioner has repaid the entire loan amount and the Union Bank of India has executed a Release Deed vide Document No.789 of 2019 dated 04.02.2019 on the file of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Golconda and thereafter, the petitioner sold the said property in favour of the respondent No.8 through registered document No.1141/2019 dated 18.02.2019. When the respondent No.8 has approached the Bank for sanction of loan by mortgaging the suit schedule property, he came to know that the father of petitioner has executed Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No.2219/2013 dated 07.05.2013 on the file of Sub- Registrar’s Office, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and the said document is unilateral revocation of the Gift Settlement Deed executed in favour of the petitioner in Document No.43 of 2008 dated 03.01.2008. 11. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the unofficial respondents. The contention of the official respondents is that the respondent No.3 is having jurisdiction to entertain the document as per the prevailing Rules as on that date as any document can be registered by any Registering Authority and contended that the revocation of Gift Settlement Deed not comes under Rule 26(i)(k) of the Telangana Rules under Registration Act, 1908. The said contention cannot be acceptable as there is interest over the subject property and without presented by both the parties in the document, the respondents cannot be revoked/cancelled the document registered in favour of the Donee. 12. The respondent No.3 without verifying the records of the subject property pertaining to the land situated in the jurisdiction of the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Golconda, has registered the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed unilaterally and without following the procedure as per Rule 26(i)(k) of the Telangana Rules under Registration Act, 1908. 13. 12. The respondent No.3 without verifying the records of the subject property pertaining to the land situated in the jurisdiction of the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Golconda, has registered the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed unilaterally and without following the procedure as per Rule 26(i)(k) of the Telangana Rules under Registration Act, 1908. 13. Moreover, in the instant case, at the time of Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed, the property was mortgaged with the Union Bank of India through Document No.1552/2009 dated 13.05.2009 till its realization on 04.02.2019. The father of the petitioner has executed the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed without right over the property as the property was already mortgaged with the Union Bank of India by the petitioner as on the date of Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed. After release of the property from the Union Bank of India, the petitioner has registered the document in favour of the respondent No.8. In spite of mortgage of the property to the Union Bank of India, the respondent No.3 has registered the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed and the same is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 14. The Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are squarely apply to the facts of the instant case and the impugned revocation of the Gift Settlement Deed is liable to be set aside. 15. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed executed by Sri T. Janardhan Rao vide Document No.2219/2013 on the file of the respondent No.3 dated 07.05.2013 and the respondent authorities are directed to permit the respondent No.8 to alienate/sale the suits schedule property without reference to the said Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed. No order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.