JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P11 and for a direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to revoke Ext.P4 cancellation deed within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner's father Sri.Fazal Haque was the owner of 10 Ares 75 Sq. Metres of property in Survey Nos.413/5/1 & 413/4/1 of Keezhattingal Village in Chirayinkeezhu Taluk. On 14.06.2000 petitioner's father executed Ext.P1 settlement deed No.1129/2000 of Kadakkavoor SRO, in favour of the petitioner, transferring the above said landed property to the petitioner. Petitioner accepted Ext.P1 and effected mutation in his favour and was paying tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1, as evident from Ext.P2 tax receipt. A possession Certificate was also issued in the name of the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P3. While so, in the year 2011, the petitioner's father unilaterally executed Ext.P4 cancellation deed, cancelling Ext.P1 without the knowledge of the petitioner. The application submitted by the petitioner's father for effecting mutation on the basis of Ext.P4 was rejected by the Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezhu, as per Ext.P5. Later, the petitioner's father died on 15.07.2014, and the petitioner's mother also died on 21.01.2021. Respondents 4 to 7 are the siblings of the petitioner. Petitioner submits that respondents 4 to 7 have no claim over the property under Ext.P1. Petitioner would further submit that he has taken a loan, mortgaging the property covered by Ext.P1, from Canara Bank and that the Bank has initiated proceedings and approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal and also initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the said property. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father has no right to execute a unilateral cancellation deed as Ext.P4 after the petitioner has accepted Ext.P1 settlement deed and effected mutation, and the 2 nd respondent was legally bound to refuse registration of Ext.P4 under Rule 67 or Rule 191 of the Registration Rules (Kerala). It is also contended that it is settled law that once a settlement or gift deed is registered in accordance with law, the only alternative available to the vendor is to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the same under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 . It is also contended that it is settled law that once a settlement or gift deed is registered in accordance with law, the only alternative available to the vendor is to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the same under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 . Petitioner would submit that the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of the Apex Court in Thotta Ganga Lekshmi Vs. Government of Andra Pradesh 2011 (3) KLT 345 and Division Bench of this Court in Hamsa P.A. Vs. District Registrar General, Kozhikode and others 2011 (3) KHC 342 , which held that unilateral cancellation of a deed, which is duly transferred and conveyed is not in accordance with law. Petitioner also relies on the judgment in Arun CA v. Inspector General Department of Registration , Vanchiyoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram 2024 KHC Online 7254 in support of his contention. It is also submitted that this Court, in a similar situation, has considered the issue and held, as per Ext.P9 judgment in WP(C) No.3809 of 2021, that the cancellation deed is to be held as non est and void. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent praying to revoke Ext.P4 cancellation deed by filing Ext.P10 petition, but by Ext.P11 order, the request of the petitioner was rejected, wherein the petitioner was directed to approach the Court for redressal of his grievance. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent, District Registrar, and based on the same, the learned Government Pleader would submit that going by Rule 67 of the Registration Rules (Kerala), there is no duty on the part of the registering officer to enquire into the validity of a document brought to him for registration or to attend any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party has no right to execute the document, but he is bound to consider objections raised only on any of the grounds stated below: (1). That the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons hey profess to be (2). That the document is forged (3). That the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity. (4). That the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons hey profess to be (2). That the document is forged (3). That the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity. (4). That the executing party is not really dead, as alleged by the party applying for registration or (5). That the executing party is minor or an idiot or a lunatic. The learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit, would further submit that none of these grounds are available in the present case and therefore, the registration of the cancellation deed cannot be denied by the registering officer. It is further contended that while examing a document presented for registration, which is governed by Sections 34 and 52 of the Registration Act, 1908 , the scope of enquiry is confined only to: “1.To enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. 2. To be satisfied about the identity of a person 3. In case of any person appearing as a representative to be satisfied about the right of such power. Registering officer on being satisfied about above matters was under the legal obligation as per Section 35(1) to register such document.” It is further submitted that Rule 30 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) was amended, and a Clause was included as Clause No.VIII mandating that no document relating to cancellation or revocation of conveyance on sale or settlement deed shall be accepted for registration unless such cancellation or revocation deed is executed by all the executant and claimant parties of the said conveyance on sale or settlement deed, as the case may be. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the present cancellation deed is of the year 2011, and the said amendment carried out to the Registration Rules (Kerala) was only on 03.09.2021. 5. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 7. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that a perusal of Ext.P1 deed would reveal that the executant never divested his possession over the property scheduled in Ext.P1, meaning that a valid Mohammedan gift was never created in respect of Ext.P1 property in favour of the petitioner. 5. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 7. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that a perusal of Ext.P1 deed would reveal that the executant never divested his possession over the property scheduled in Ext.P1, meaning that a valid Mohammedan gift was never created in respect of Ext.P1 property in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 would contend that it is settled law that for the creation of a valid Mohammedan gift, the following conditions are to be satisfied:- (i)declaration of gift by donor; (ii)acceptance of gift by donee and (iii)delivery of possession On the basis of the same, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 that since possession has not been handed over, the gift has not taken effect, and therefore, the father was well within his right to execute Ext.P4 deed of cancellation. It is also contended that respondents 4 to 7 have already filed a suit as OS No.600 of 2022 before the Munsiff Court, Attingal, for partition of Ext.P1 property dehors the execution of Ext.P1, and the said suit is pending consideration. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th 4 th respondent, wherein it is contended that the petitioner was born and brought up in the residential house by the name ‘Zeenath Manzil’, which is situated in the property in question. Even after the execution of the settlement deed, the petitioner was residing with his parents in the said property, and immediately after the execution of the settlement deed, mutation was effected in his favour, and he has taken possession of the property. Ext.P12 is a copy of the Thandapper Account, which shows that the property is in the name of the petitioner and that mutation was effected before the cancellation deed was executed. Petitioner has produced Ext.P13, copy of the front page of the SSLC Book, as well as Ext.P14, copy of the passport, to show that his address is the same as in Ext.P1. It is further contended that respondents 4 to 7 have got the respective shares from his father, and OS No.600 of 2022 was filed only after obtaining notice in this writ petition. 7. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 8. It is further contended that respondents 4 to 7 have got the respective shares from his father, and OS No.600 of 2022 was filed only after obtaining notice in this writ petition. 7. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 8. Admittedly, Ext.P1 settlement deed was executed as early as 2000, and the petitioner accepted Ext.P1 settlement deed and the property was mutated and tax was paid, as evident from Ext.P2. Ext.P3 possession certificate also would show that the possession of the property is in the name of the petitioner. While so, after almost 11 years after the execution of Ext.P1, Ext.P1 settlement deed was unilaterally cancelled by the father of the petitioner as per Ext.P4, without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is to be seen that mutation was sought for after execution of Ext.P4 cancellation deed, the Tahsildar, Chirayinkeezhu, rejected the said request on finding that the said unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is not in accordance with law. It is also brought on record that the father of the petitioner, as well as his mother, has already expired and now the claim over the property covered by Ext.P1 is raised by respondents 4 to 7, and they have filed a suit as OS No.600 of 2022 , seeking partition of the property covered by Ext.P1. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, petitioner has availed a loan from the Canara Bank on the strength of Ext.P1 settlement deed. The specific contention raised by the petitioner is that the unilateral cancellation of Ext.P1, as per Ext.P4 cancellation deed, after the petitioner has accepted Ext.P1 settlement deed and effected mutation, is absolutely without any basis and that, once a settlement or gift deed is registered in accordance with law, the only alternative available to the vendor is to approach the Civil Court for cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 . Petitioner places reliance on the judgment in Thota Ganga Laxmi’s case cited supra, wherein the Apex Court was considering the registration of a cancellation deed and held that it is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that a cancellation deed can be registered, and that too after notice to the concerned parties and held that the cancellation deed and its registration are wholly void, non est and are meaningless transactions. In Hamsa P.A’s case cited supra, the court was considering the cancellation of a sale deed executed unilaterally by the vendor of a property, which had been duly transferred and conveyed earlier and held that such cancellation deeds are documents that are void and non est in law. This Court in Noble John v. State of Kerala 2010 (3) KLT 941 has held that by cancelling a sale deed executed by him earlier, the vendor is actually attempting to retransfer the property to himself, which he cannot do, since he is no longer entitled to that property, as the title had already passed to the purchaser on the execution of the sale deed unless the sale deed stipulates otherwise and for becoming entitlement to be competent to execute a document in respect of that property, he has to first get the earlier sale deed annulled by a court of law, and held that the registering authority is well within its powers to refuse registration of a deed of cancellation of a sale deed. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment and was confirmed the same in Santhosh Antonio S.Netto v. Joshy Thomas 2020 (3) KLT 408 holding that going by Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 an adjudication with respect to void or voidable nature of a registered sale deed could be only by a Civil Court, and the party who executed the sale deed, if aggrieved by the same has to approach a competent Civil Court as provided in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 . 9. It is pertinent to note that the Rules were also amended in consonance with the said judgment by amending Rule 30 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) wherein additional provision was added as Clause No.viii, which mandates that no document relating to cancellation or revocation of conveyance on sale or settlement deed shall be accepted for registration unless such cancellation or revocation deed is executed by all the executant and claimant parties of the said conveyance on sale or settlement deed, as the case may be. True, Ext.P4 cancellation deed was executed before that. So after the said amendment, the deed in the nature of Ext.P4, cancelling Ext.P1 settlement deed, could not have been registered by the registering authority. True, Ext.P4 cancellation deed was executed before that. So after the said amendment, the deed in the nature of Ext.P4, cancelling Ext.P1 settlement deed, could not have been registered by the registering authority. This Court by Ext.P9 judgment in a similar case, has held that the cancellation deed must be held to be non est and void and a meaningless transaction, since it is without the junction of the person in whose favour the property was transferred and considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court has interfered and declared the cancellation deed as void and non est in law and not liable to be acted upon and directed the registering authority to issue further orders in terms of the judgment. 10. Yet another contention raised by the respondents 4 to 7 is that going by the Mohammedan law, the settlement deed is not complete going by Mohammedan Law, since there is no delivery of possession. It is contended that for a gift to be complete, three conditions are to be satisfied (i) a declaration of gift by the donor, (ii) an acceptance of the gift by the donee and (iii) delivery of possession. Though the first two conditions are satisfied, there is no delivery of possession of the property and therefore, the settlement deed is not complete, and in the said circumstance, it was well within the power of the father of the petitioner to have executed Ext.P4 deed of cancellation. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hafeeza Bibi and Others v.Shaik Farid (Dead) by LRs and Others 2011 KHC 4461 in support of the said contention raised by them. 11. To drive home the point, the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 relies on the recital in Ext.P1 settlement deed and contend that there is a rider in Ext.P1 deed that the father and mother of the petitioner will have a life interest in the property in as much as they are entitled to reside in the property till their death and after their death, the petitioner will be entitled to take possession of the property to pay tax. It is also to be noted that Ext.P1 deed further states that, except for the limited right of the father and mother of the petitioner to reside there till their death, all other rights, the petitioner’s father had in the property, have been transferred to the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P1 deed would reveal that the petitioner as well as the father were residing in the very same address, ie., Zeenath Manzil, Palankonam, Perumkulam P.O. The specific contention of the petitioner is that he is residing in the said property with his father and mother and Ext.P13, copy of the front page of SSLC certificate of the petitioner and Ext.P14, copy of the passport of the petitioner would reveal that the address of the petitioner is very same address as shown in Ext.P1. Admittedly, the petitioner and his father executed Ext.P1, and were residing in the very same residential building. After the execution of Ext.P1, the property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and tax was paid by him, as evident from Ext.P2. A possession certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P3. This Court in Arun C.A’s case cited supra, had occasion to consider a similar contention as to whether physical delivery of possession is essential for validity of a gift deed under Muslim law, where donor and donee are co-residents and held that when donor and donee reside in the gifted property, Muslim law does not insist on formal delivery of possession by the donor to the donee, where a donor gives property to the donee, reserving the right of residence in the house situated in the property, delivery of constructive possession alone is sufficient to complete the gift, and actual physical delivery of possession is unnecessary in the gifts between co- residents of gifted property, and further held that a writ petition is perfectly maintainable to challenge or nullify such a cancellation deed executed for cancelling the earlier gift deed. I am of the view that the issue considered by this Court in Arun C.A ’s case cited supra is identical to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am of the view that the issue considered by this Court in Arun C.A ’s case cited supra is identical to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is also relevant to note that even in Hafeeza Bibi ’s case cited supra, the Apex Court has held that going by the Mohammedan Law, the donee should take delivery of the possession of the gifted property, either actual or constructive so as to make the gift complete. 12. Going by the decisions cited supra and the discussion as above,I am of the view that the father of the petitioner had no legal right to execute Ext.P4 cancellation deed, after the same had been accepted by the petitioner. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows: 1.Ext.P11 is set aside. 2.Ext.P4 cancellation deed is declared to be void and non est in law and not liable to be acted upon. 3. There will be a further direction to respondents 1 to 3 to revoke the registration of Ext.P4 cancellation deed and make necessary entries in the records, and issue a fresh encumbrance certificate to the petitioner, without showing the details of the registration of Ext.P4 cancellation deed. 4.Necessary orders shall be issued in this regard within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.