PERAM RADHIKA KIRAN Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The action of the 5th respondent in registering the Cancellation Deed bearing document No.1358/2022, dtd. 12/4/2022, thereby unilaterally revoking the Gift Settlement Deed No.3638/2019, dtd. 23/11/2019 is questioned in this writ petition as being arbitrary and illegal and sought for a consequential direction to set aside the Cancellation Deed and the settlement deed bearing document No.1510/2022, dtd. 30/4/2022 of the Joint Sub- Registrar, Puttur.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her father-6 th respondent, and her mother jointly purchased an extent of 480 sq.yards, of which the subject property forms part of. In the year 2019, her father by way of gift settlement deed no.3638/2019, dtd. 23/11/2019 gifted away his share of 240 sq.yards in her favour and subsequently her mother transferred her share of the property of 240 sq.yards by way of another gift settlement deed No.6019/2021, dtd. 30/12/2021 and eversince she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Her husband got constructed a building therein, the same was assessed to property tax and the same is in finishing phase and they intend to earn their livelihood by renting out the premises. Thereafter, at the instigation of some third parties, disputes and differences arose in the family and her father started threatening her to cancel the gift deed and conscious of his statements, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to 4th respondent-Joint Sub Registrar, marking copies to his higher-ups in the registration department requesting them not to entertain any document presented for cancellation of the gift deed executed in her favour by her father. Inspite of the legal notice and in utter disregard to the settled position of law that unilateral cancellation of registered documents is not permitted and Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act prohibits registration of unilateral cancellation deed, the 5th respondent-Joint Sub Registrar received the revocation deed unilaterally cancelling the earlier registered gift settlement deed presented by petitioner's father and got it registered. Further, pursuant to registration of the said revocation deed, the petitioner's father executed gift settlement deed No.1510/2022, dtd. 30/4/2022 gifting away subject matter of the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner in favour of respondent nos.7 and 8. The said action of the registering authorities is in utter violation of the Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration Act and contrary to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Lakshmi vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2010)15 SCC 207 . Accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition by granting the reliefs sought in the writ petition.

(3.) The 5th respondent-Sub Registrar, Puttur, filed counter-affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition and further contending that Revocation of Settlement is covered by Article 49(B) of Schedule 1-A to the Indian Stamp Act,1899. Whereas the deeds cancelling previously registered sale deeds alone are covered under Rule 26(1)(k) of the Registration Act,1908 which mandates that the registering officers shall ensure that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executants and claimants to the previously registered deeds and revocation of settlement deeds are not covered by the above and as such execution by both the parties i.e. setlor and settlee is not mandatory for registration of the revocation deeds cancelling the previously registered settlement deeds and the said position was clarified in Director and Inspector General's Memo No.G4/4956/2016, dtd. 6/6/2016, wherein it was stated that as per the Registration Act,1908 and Registration Rules there is no bar for registration of revocation of gift deed which is executed by the Donor. In view of the above clarification, the revocation of settlement deed executed by the settlor V.Subbarama Naidu was processed for registration, since registration of the above revocation deed is not prohibited and thus there is neither inconsistency nor incongruity. The writ petition is meritless and the same deserves dismissal.