Telangana High Court

Pallela Vijayalakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 April, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                   AT HYDERABAD
      MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
              TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

                       :PRESENT:
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
              WP. Nos:29030 & 29059 of 2012

WP. NO. 29030 OF 2012:
Between:
Pallela Vijayalakshmi W/o Siva Kumar,

                                                           ..... Petitioner
                                 AND

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue,
  Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The Sub-Registrar, Vallabhanagar, R.R. District.
3 Katla Ganesh, S/o late Mallaiah, R/o H.No.1-6-227/13,
  Jambhavi Nagar, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.

                                                       .....Respondents

                Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the
affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ,
order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of 2nd respondent in entertaining and registering
the revocation of gift settlement deed, dated 17-5-2011 presented by
the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Rule 26 (1) (k)
(1) of A.P. Rules under Registration Act 1908 and violative of Art.
300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the
document i.e., revocation of gift settlement deed, dt.17-5-2011.

WP .NO:29059 of 2012
Between:
Shakapuram Sabitha W/o Venkata Swamy,
                                                           ..... Petitioner
                                 AND

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue,
  Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2 The Sub-Registrar, Vallabhanagar, R.R.District.
3 Katla Ganesh, S/o late Mallaiah, R/o H.No.1-6-227/13, Jambhavi
Nagar,
  Ramnagar, Hyderabad

                                                       .....Respondents
                 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying that in the circumstances stated in the petition and the
affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ,
order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of 2nd respondent in entertaining and registering
the revocation of gift settlement deed, dated 17-5-2011 presented by
the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Rule 26 (1) (k)
(1) of A.P. Rules under Registration Act 1908 and violative of Art
300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the
document i.e., revocation of gift settlement deed, dt.17-5-2011;




               These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing
the petitions and the affidavits filed therein, and upon hearing the
arguments of Sri S.Subba Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners in both
the petitions, and of the G.P. for Revenue, for the Respondents No.1
& 2 in both petitions, and of Sri M.Surya Prakash, Advocate for the
Respondent No.3, the Court made the following;

ORDER:

"The issue that arises for consideration in these two Writ Petitions is whether registration of a document unilaterally canceling a gift

deed is barred by the provisions of Rule 26 (i) (k) (i) of the A.P.Rules made under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Rules').

Respondent No.3 has executed two gift deeds in favour of the respective petitioners in these two Writ Petitions on 01-01-2010 and

the same were registered. Subsequently, respondent No.3 has executed revocation deeds, dated 17-05-2011, whereby he has

purported to revoke the gift deeds already executed by him in favour of the petitioners. The said deeds of revocation were presented to

respondent No.2 for registration and he has, accordingly, registered the same. Assailing the said action of respondent No.2, these two

Writ Petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners.

At the hearing, Mr.S.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the

petitioners, submitted that under Rule 26 (i) (k) (i) of the Rules, unilateral cancellation of any deed of conveyance by the executant cannot be done unless all the parties to the original deed of conveyance, which is sought to be cancelled, have joined in the execution of the later document. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in

Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta vs. District Registrar, Srikakulam

and others .

In order to appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel for

the petitioners, it is necessary to consider the statutory provision i.e., Rule 26 (i) (k) (i) of the Rules, which reads as under:

"26. (i) Every document shall, before acceptance for registration, be examined by the Registering Officer to ensure that all the requirements prescribed in the Act and in these rules have been complied with, for instance;

(a)...

(b)...

(c)...

(d)...

(e)...

(f)...

(g)...

(h)...

(i)....

(j)...

(k)(i) The registrating officer shall ensure at the time of presentation 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 land 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;

A careful perusal of the above-reproduced Rule would indicate

that the same would apply to deeds of conveyance on sale. The word 'conveyance' is defined under Section 2 (10) of the Indian

Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act'), which inter alia includes a

conveyance on sale. The said definition reads as under:

"'Conveyance' includes a conveyance on sale, every instrument and every decree or final order of any Civil Court, [every order made by the High Court under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) in respect of amalgamation or merger of companies] by which property, whether movable or immovable, or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of any other person, invervivos, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule-I or Schedule 1-A, as the case may be."

Rule 26 (i) (k) (i) of the Rules has not included within its sweep, all conveyances as defined under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It has

limited its application only to the deed of conveyance on sale.

Therefore, in my opinion, the bar created under Rule 26 (i) (k) (i) has

a limited application only to cases of unilateral cancellation of deeds of conveyance on sale and the said provision aforetiorari will not

apply to other modes of conveyance as defined under Section 2 (10)

of the Act.

A perusal of the judgment in Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta (cited supra), on which the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed

heavy reliance, would show that even though the learned Judge has

referred to the contention of respondent No.5 therein that Rule 26 (i)

(k) (i) would apply only to sale deeds, the same was not dealt with. The judgment is mainly based on the irrevocable nature of the gift

deed. In my opinion, registration of a document is one thing while

revocation or otherwise thereof is quite another thing. Unless the statute creates a bar on the registration of documents, no fetter can be

placed by the Courts on such registrations by delving into the validity

or otherwise of the documents sought to be registered. If the

petitioners feel aggrieved by the revocation of the gift deeds, the only remedy for them is to approach the Civil Court by filing a properly constituted suit.

Since I am unable to subscribe to the view of the learned Judge in Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta (cited supra), it is appropriate that the matter is dealt with by a Division Bench. Accordingly, the Registry shall place these Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for obtaining orders for placing them before the appropriate Division Bench.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1. The Section Officer, Writ Filing Section, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

2. The Section Officer, Writ Posting Section, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

3. Two CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri S. Subba Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

5. One CC to Sri M.Surya Prakash, Advocate (OPUC)

6. One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

AB DRAFTED ON 21-11-2012

CVNRJ

DATE: 19-11-2012 ORDER

WP. NOS. 29030 & 29059 OF 2012