Kerala High Court
Abdul Azeez K.K vs Inspector General Department Of ... on 26 June, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:46394
W.A. No. 44 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 44 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2024 IN WP(C) NO.15428 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IN WPC:
1 ABDUL AZEEZ K.K,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.KHADER, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, MOOLEPPADOM ROAD,
NJALAKKAM KARA, KALAMASSERY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
683104
2 SUHARA,
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.ABDUL AZEEZ K.K,KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, MOOLEPPADOM
ROAD,NJALAKKAM KARA, KALAMASSERY P.O,ERNAKULAM, PIN -
683104
BY ADVS.SRI.RAMEEZ NOOH
SMT.FATHIMA K.
SRI.AMIN ALI ASHRAF
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & PETITIONER IN WPC:
1 INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION,
VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
2025:KER:46394
W.A. No. 44 of 2025
2
2 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, OPP MAHARAJA'S
GROUND,KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
3 SUB REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, EDAPALLY,ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682024
4 ARUN C.A.
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHMAN ARAFA VILLA, KADAYIPILLI ROAD,
U.C COLLEGE P.O, ALUVA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683102
BY ADVS. SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.K.A.JALEEL
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP B VINITHA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.06.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46394
W.A. No. 44 of 2025
3
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & P.M. MANOJ, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 44 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025.
JUDGMENT
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR :
This writ appeal, filed by 4th and 5th respondents in WP(C) No.15428 of
2024, impugns the judgment dated 14.11.2024 of a learned Single Judge in
the said writ petition. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ
appeal are as follows.
2. The writ petition was preferred by the 4th respondent herein
aggrieved by Ext.P2 cancellation deed dated 14.05.2019, whereby Ext.P1 gift
deed executed by the appellants in favour of their daughter, Sunitha Azeez,
was sought to be cancelled. In the writ petition, it was the case of the 4 th
respondent herein that going by the settled law on the subject, a registered
gift deed could not be cancelled unilaterally by one of the parties to the
conveyance. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. and Others [2016 (10) SCC 767].
3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter found force in
the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and held that the
unilateral cancellation of a gift deed is wholly void, non est and does not
operate to execute, assign, limit or execute any right, title or interest in the
property. The decision relied upon by the writ petitioner was accepted by the
2025:KER:46394
learned Single Judge to support the said finding. The learned Single Judge,
however, went on to consider the issue as to whether or not the gift in Ext.P1
gift deed was in fact a valid gift under Muslim Law. The discussions in
paragraphs 4 to 12 of the impugned judgment are essentially on the said issue.
The point that is urged before us in this appeal by the appellants is that the
learned Single Judge erred in making the observation regarding the validity
of the gift in the writ petition, where that issue did not actually arise for
consideration.
4. We have heard Sri.Rameez Nooh, learned counsel for the appellants,
Sri.C.Y.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. We also heard
Smt.B. Vinitha, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to
3.
5. On consideration of the rival submissions, we find force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the excursion by the
learned Single Judge into the aspect of whether or not there is a valid gift was
wholly unnecessary for deciding the lis in the writ petition. As far as the issue
that was raised in the writ petition was concerned, we find that it was limited
to challenging the legality of Ext.P2 cancellation deed dated 14.05.2019,
which purported to cancel Ext.P1 gift deed that had been earlier registered
before the registering authority. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge,
a unilateral cancellation, even when both the parties to the conveyance are
alive, is not legally permissible. We note in this connection that a cardinal
issue that ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge was
whether the appellants could have executed a cancellation deed at all on the
2025:KER:46394
facts of the instant case? This was because the fact disclosed that the original
donee, Sunitha Azeez, had expired on 13.09.2018, barely six months from the
date of Ext.P1 gift deed. On her death, the succession law as applicable would
have come into effect, devolving the property acquired through Ext.P1 gift
deed to the legal heirs under Muslim Law. At any rate, since the donee had
expired, and the succession law had been triggered, the appellants could not
have executed a cancellation deed in respect of the gift deed that had already
worked itself out.
6. We are of the view that the remedy of the appellants in a situation
where they were essentially questioning the extent of rights that had been
transferred to late Sunitha Azeez through Ext.P1 gift deed, ought to have been
agitated by them through a Suit for declaration filed before the competent
Civil Court. The remedy chosen by the appellant, of seeking cancellation of
Ext.P1 gift deed, was certainly ill-advised. We, therefore, allow this writ
appeal to the limited extent of setting aside those findings of the learned
Single Judge contained in paragraphs 4 to 12 of the impugned judgment, but
dismiss the writ appeal to the extent it impugns the findings in paragraphs 13
and 14 of the impugned judgment.
We note that the learned Single Judge has reserved the right of the
appellants herein to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate reliefs in
the last paragraphs of the impugned judgment and it is only with a view to
avoid any prejudice to the appellants in the litigation proposed before the civil
court that we deem it apposite to set aside the observations of the learned
Single Judge in paragraphs 4 to 12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances
2025:KER:46394
of the case, we also deem it apposite to direct that if the proceedings before
the civil court of competent jurisdiction are initiated by the appellants herein
within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment,
then the civil court shall not reject the proceedings on the ground of
limitation.
Sd/-
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M. MANOJ
JUDGE
ttb
