KOLLI RAJESH CHOWDARY Vs. STATE OF AP
LAWS(APH)-2019-3-127
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 07,2019

Kolli Rajesh Chowdary Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Ap Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PINNAMA RAJU RANGA RAJU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-57] [REFERRED TO]
CHELLUBOYINA NAGARAJU VS. MOLLETI RAMUDU ALIAS VIJAYALAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-87] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M Seetharama Murti - (1.)This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking verbatim the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in registering the Deed of Revocation/cancellation, dt.29.09.2017 vide document No.4581/2017, dt.03.10.2017 executed by the respondent No.4, where under she cancelled the gift deed dt.20.09.2014 vide document No.3876/2014 executed by her in favour of the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of The Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made there under including Rule 26(i)(k) and also declare the subsequent registered sale deed document No.5136/2017, dt.06.11.2017 executed by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No. 5 as sham and nominal and that those documents are null and void and not enforceable and pass such other order or orders in the interests of justice."

(2.)I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; and, of the learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
2.1 In view of the legal position relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court is of the considered view that no notice is necessary to the non-official respondents 4 & 5; and, that the writ petition can be disposed of having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and of the learned Government Pleader.

2.2 I have perused the material record.

(3.)The case of the petitioner, in brief, is this: The 4th respondent is the paternal grandmother of the petitioner. The 5th respondent is his aunt, being wife of his paternal uncle. The 4th respondent possessed certain movable and immovable properties of her own. She had settled on the petitioner her immovable property viz., Ac.3.24 cents of dry land in Sy.No.255/1 of Muppalla Village, Chanderlapadu Mandal, Krishna District, by executing a registered gift settlement deed, dated 20.09.2014, bearing document no.3876 of 2014. The said gift settlement deed was executed out of love and affection she had for the petitioner, who is the son of her elder son, and with a view to provide the said property for his livelihood. The gift was accepted and the possession of the property was delivered to the petitioner on the same day. Thereafter, the petitioner made an online application, on 09.05.2015, before the 3rd respondent and paid the requisite fee and requested for mutation of the said property in his name in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar passbook. The same was acknowledged vide a receipt no.3310848. Since the date of the gift settlement deed, the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above said property covered by the said deed. In the absence of assured irrigation sources to the said land, the petitioner used to raise only one crop per year depending upon the monsoon. On the suggestion of the neighbouring ryots, he got established a bore-well in the land to enable him to raise two crops per year. In order to meet the expenses for establishing the bore-well and the submersible motor etcetera, he had applied for an Encumbrance Certificate. The same was received, on 25.01.2019. He was surprised to notice that the 4th respondent, having executed a deed of cancellation, dated 29.09.2017, registered the same, on 03.10.2017, and revoked the gift settlement deed, dated 20.09.2014, executed by her in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also noticed that, after execution of such cancellation deed, she had further executed a sale deed, dated 28.10.2017, in favour of the 5th respondent and registered it, on 06.11.2017. Since the property in question was transferred in favour of the petitioner with absolute rights by the 4th respondent by executing the registered gift settlement deed, she has no right to execute the deed of cancellation either cancelling or revoking the gift settlement deed executed by her in favour of the petitioner. The reasons stated by the 4th respondent in the revocation deed/deed of cancellation to the effect that possession of the above said property was not given to the petitioner and that he had got the gift settlement deed registered in his name by deceiving her and that he did not fulfil the word given to her are all false. The gift under the gift settlement deed is not a conditional gift. Hence, the gift settlement deed executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner cannot be cancelled on the alleged grounds mentioned in the deed of revocation or deed of cancellation. However, the 4th respondent cancelled the gift settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner with a mala fide intention. Under the gift settlement deed, valuable rights in respect of the property covered by the said deed had accrued to the petitioner. The donor has no right to revoke the gift, once the property is gifted under a registered deed. As per settled legal position, unilateral cancellation of sale deeds and other documents transferring or alienating the property is impermissible. Unless the parties to the earlier deed consent for cancellation of the deed and the beneficiary under the deed joins as a party to the deed of cancellation, the deed of cancellation cannot be registered. The relevant procedure is prescribed under Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908. The said procedure is not followed by the 2nd respondent before registering the deed of cancellation executed by the 4th respondent. For all the reasons stated, the deed of cancellation cancelling the gift settlement deed executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner is null and void. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.'
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.