Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Eswaraiah, Kurnool Dist. vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. Ano. on 28 October, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
W.P.No.17801 of 2015
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
"..to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction mostly
one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in not cancelling
the Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document
No.4833/2003 dated 11.06.2003 and Registered Sale
Deed bearing Document No.5698/2003 dated 8.7.2003
as illegal, irregular, irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary,
unconstitutional, contrary to the Judgment and Decree
dated 31.10.2007 in O.S.No.103/2003 on the file of the
Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and
consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith cancel
the said document and to make appropriate changes in
the Register of Encumbrances.."
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were impleaded, but they did
not choose to appear. Learned Government Pleader did not
file his counter despite opportunities, but an opportunity was
given to the Government Pleader to make his submissions
since the issue inter se the petitioner and the Government is
essentially one of law.
This Court has heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner. He points out that the petitioner,
who was a senior citizen filed this writ petition for the relief
mentioned above. It is his contention that the petitioner‟s
eldest son, who is added as respondent No.3, created two gift
deeds dated 11.06.2003 and 24.06.2003. With the said gift
deed dated 24.06.2003 the said K.Niranjan Babu-respondent
No.3, executed a sale deed in favour of one P.V.Madhava
Swamy. The said purchaser filed a suit for declaration of his
title and other relief in O.S.No.103 of 2003. The said suit was
dismissed. It was held in the said suit that the gift deed
dated 11.06.2003 is not proved to be a genuine and valid
document. Thereafter, it was further held that on the basis of
11.06.2003 gift deed, title could not have been conveyed
under the sale deed dated 08.07.2003.
The contention of the learned counsel is that in view of
this judgment, which is also confirmed by the higher Courts,
the title of the petitioner was upheld. He wanted revocation of
the documents and submitted a representation. The Registrar
cancelled only one deed bearing number 5266/2003 dated
24.06.2003, but did not cancel the second gift deed dated
11.06.2003 with document number 4833/2003 and the sale
deed 08.07.2003 bearing Document No.5698/2003.
Therefore, learned counsel argues that the action of the
respondents in failing to cancel the sale deed is incorrect
more so in view of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.103 of
2003 he is entitled to the relief.
The Government Pleader for Stamps and Assignments
argues and submits that only mode of cancellation is
permissible under Rule 26 (k) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules
under the Registration Act. It is his contention that as the
conditions in the said Rule is not fulfilled, Registrar was right
in refusing the cancellation.
After examining the matter in detail, this Court notices
that it is a fact that the Court declared that Ex.A3 in the said
suit O.S.No.103 of 2003 is not proved to be a genuine or a
valid document. This is the finding with relation to the
registered gift deed dated 11.06.2003. The Court came to this
conclusion because of the various reasons mentioned in the
gift deed, including the doubt about the signature, failure to
examine the attesting witnesses etc. Thereafter, the Court
held that by virtue of this, the further transfer of title to the
plaintiff by the registered sale deed dated 08.07.2003 was
also negatived. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner
placed heavy emphasis upon this issue and sought for a
Mandamus.
The law on the subject is very well settled. In the case of
Thota Ganga Laxmi and Ors. v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh1, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had an occasion to
deal with Rule 26 (k) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration
Rules (for short „the Rules‟). The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
clearly held that when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent
Court, the cancellation deed can be registered and that too
after notice to the parties.
The said rule 26(k)(i) is as follows:
"The registering officer shall ensure at the time of
preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of
previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before
him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the
executant and claimant parties to the previously
registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation
deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural
consent or orders of a competent civil or High Court or
State or Central Government annulling the transaction
1 (2010) 15 SCC 207
contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance
on sale:
Provided that the registering officer shall dispense
with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and
claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of
conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is
executed by a Civil Judge or a Government Officer
competent to execute Government orders declaring the
properties contained in the previously registered
conveyance on sale to be Government or Assigned or
Endowment lands or properties not register able by any
provision of law."
A plain language reading of Rule 26 (k) (i) of the Rules
makes it very clear that there should be a cancellation deed
executed by the executant and claimants of the previous deed
and that such cancellation deed should be accompanied by a
declaration showing mutual consent or by an order of
competent Court/State or Central Government annulling the
transaction. The proviso to this Rule says that Registering
Officer can dispense with the execution of the cancellation
deed, if the cancellation deed is executed by a civil Judge or a
competent Government Officer.
These are the conditions which are necessary to be
present before a deed of cancellation can be accepted for
registration. The duly executed the cancellation deed must be
accompanied by a declaration of mutual consent. The
conjunction „and‟ makes this clear. The proviso carves out an
exception. Only if these conditions are present, the action of
the Sub-Registrar in this case can be upheld. These
conditions are not at all present in this case. The law is also
well settled. Once the statute/rules prescribes the manner in
which an act is to be done; it must be done in that manner
alone or not at all.
The writ petitioner does not have an order in his favour
„annulling‟ the transaction contained in the previously
registered deeds. The writ petitioner did not in fact seek such
a declaration as a counter claim in his written statement in
the suit. The Court did not also give a direction for
cancellation of the deed.
In that view of the matter, despite the findings of the
Court in O.S.No.103 of 2003, this Court is of the opinion that
no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in the present
writ petition.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall
stand dismissed.
________________________
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J
Date: 28.10.2022
KLP
