V.JYOTI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Kopparthi Sumathi, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) The petitioner is the daughter of the 3rdrespondent. The Settlement Deed, dtd. 10/6/2010, had been executed by the 3rd respondent, in favour of the petitioner whereby about 184 sq.yards of land bearing House No.5/1/42, Gurramvari Street-2, 5th Ward, Kavali Town, Nellore District was settled on the petitioner herein. It is the case of the petitioner that this property was given to her towards pasupukumkuma, in relation to her marriage.

(3.) The 3rd respondent had subsequently executed a deed of cancellation of gift on 4/8/2016 unilaterally. Aggrieved by the said deed of cancellation, which was registered by the 2nd respondent, as document bearing No.2841 of 2016, the petitioner has approached this Court for a Writ of Mandamus to be issued to 2nd respondent declaring the registration of such a document to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and to further direct the 2nd respondent-Sub Registrar not to entertain document in relation to this property. The petitioner contends that Rule 26(k) of the Registration Rules stipulates that cancellation cannot be registered, unless all the parties to the original document, which is sought to be cancelled are present before the Sub-Registrar and execute the said deed of cancellation. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Ganga laxmi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh,(2010)15 SCC 207:2013) 1 SCC (Civ)1063. had held that a valid transfer, by way of a registered alienation, cannot be cancelled unilaterally and at the instance of one of the parties to the suit document. It is also contended that this judgment was followed by this Court in the case of Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta vs. The District Registrar, Srikakulam and Ors.,2012 (4) ALT 435.