Smt. Penmetsa Lalitha Kumari, vs Sri Pinnamaraju Ranga Raju,
2024 Latest Caselaw 10097 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10097 AP
Judgement Date : 11 November, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Smt. Penmetsa Lalitha Kumari, vs Sri Pinnamaraju Ranga Raju, on 11 November, 2024

Author: R Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

 APHC010062112021
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                            [3508]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                   PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

                         WRIT APPEAL NO: 168/2021

Between:

Smt. Penmetsa Lalitha Kumari,                                     ...APPELLANT

                                      AND

Sri Pinnamaraju Ranga Raju and Others                       ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P N MURTHY

The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

The deceased 5th respondent, in the appeal, who is the mother of the 1st

respondent, the appellant and the 7th respondent, had executed certain deed

of gift in favour of the 1st respondent on 11.01.2005, conveying a house

property situated in Akuveedu Town.

2. Subsequently, the deceased 5th respondent, on the ground that

she had been made to execute the deed of gift, by the fraud perpetrated on

RRR, J & MRK, J

her, by the 1st respondent, had executed a deed of revocation of gift

settlement and registered the same on 28.10.2013. Thereafter, the deceased

5th respondent had registered two deeds of gift, dated 23.04.2014 and

25.04.2014, settling the disputed property on the appellant as well as the 7th

respondent.

3. The 1st respondent herein, being aggrieved by the registration of

the deed of revocation as well as the subsequent gift deeds, had approached

this Court, by way of W.P.No.15003 of 2014, contending that a uni-lateral

cancellation of the registered deed of gift by the 5th respondent, would be in

violation of Rule 26 (k) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules under the Registration

Act, 1908 (herein referred to as the 'Registration Rules') and that the

revocation would have to be set aside. The 1st respondent would also contend

that upon setting aside of such a revocation of deed of gift, the subsequent gift

deeds would have to fail.

4. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, by Judgment, dated

21.05.2020, had allowed the Writ Petition, on the ground that there is a

violation of Rule 26 (k) of the Registration Rules, which invalidates the

revocation deed executed by the deceased 5th respondent on 28.10.2013.

5. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellant has approached

this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal.

RRR, J & MRK, J

6. Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would contend that the deed of gift had been revoked by the

deceased 5th respondent, on account of the fraud perpetrated on her by her

own son. He would draw the attention of this Court to the legal notice issued

on behalf of the 5th respondent to the 1st respondent, wherein the details of

fraud have been set out. He submits that on account of non-cooperation of the

1st respondent, there was no go for the deceased 5th respondent, except to

cancel the earlier gift deed and revoking the deed and registering the same.

He would submit that in view of these peculiar circumstances, the Learned

Single Judge could not have allowed the Writ Petition.

7. Heard Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri P. N. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The Learned Single Judge, relying upon the following Judgments:

1) Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1,

2) Fazalullah khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh2,

3) Haji Mohammed Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh3,

4) Kolli Rajesh Chowdary v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department4,

2012 (1) ALD 90

AIR 2012 AP 163

2012 (2) ALT 57

RRR, J & MRK, J

5) Garagaboyina Radhakrishna v. The District Registrar, Visakhapatnam5,

6) Pedda Jaannadha Rao v. Renanki Janikamma6,

7) Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta v. The District Registrar, Srikakulam7, and

8) Gaddam Laxmaiah v. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps8

had held that revocation of deed of gift would have to be in accordance

with Rule 26 (k) which requires presence of both executant and the recipient

of the gift deed to execute the revocation deed. The Learned Single Judge,

after observing that the revocation deed was uni-laterally executed by the

deceased 5th respondent, had held that such a revocation is violative of Rule

26 (k) and that the Registering Authorities ought not to have registered the

deed of revocation. Accordingly, the revocation deed and the subsequent

deeds of gift were set aside.

9. Rule 26 (k) (1) of the Registration Rules reads as follows:

"The registering officer shall ensure at the time of presentation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of con-veyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered

2019 (2) ALT 290 (AP)

AIR 2012 AP 189

2007 (3) ALD 442

2012 (4) ALT 435

2018 (1) ALD 532

RRR, J & MRK, J

conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction 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 registerable by any provision of law."

10. A plain reading of the said Rule shows that Rule 26 (k) can apply

only to revocation of registered deed on conveyance of sale. However, in the

Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh as well as this Court, cited above, it was held that Rule 26 (k)

(1), would extend to cancellation of deeds of gifts also. Without dilating on the

specific observations of these Judgments, it would suffice that we are in

respectful agreement with the said observations and more specifically, the

observations that have been extracted by the Learned Single Judge.

11. In the circumstances, nothing further survives in the Writ Appeal

and it is accordingly, dismissed.

RRR, J & MRK, J

12. Before parting with the appeal, it would also be necessary to