ABDULLAKUTTY Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(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.293302014 first The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the 2ndrespondent 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.3151976 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 2ndrespondent 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 2ndrespondent 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 2ndrespondent to register the same in a similar factual situation. Hence this writ petition is filed with following prayers

(2.) W.P.(C). No.37443/2016 is filed with following prayers:

(3.) The petitioner herein is the co-owner of 39 cents of property comprising in Resurvey No.1111 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. 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.