Telangana High Court

Mr.Mohammed Zabiulhassan vs State Of ... on 12 September, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

              WRIT PETITION No.21246 of 2015

ORDER:

Heard Sri Subhani S.M, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Smt. T.Padmaja, learned counsel for respondent

No.6, Sri Shaik Salman Shanawaz, learned counsel for

respondent No.7 and learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Revenue appearing on behalf of official respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the

4th respondent in receiving and registering the cancellation of

the gift settlement deed bearing document Nos. 2379 of 2015,

2380 of 2015 and 2381 of 2015 dated 25.05.2015, unilaterally

without following the due process of law.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the property

bearing municipal number 12-2-783/1/A admeasuring 502

sq.yds situated at Rethibowli, Hyderabad was purchased by the

petitioner's father. During his life time, the petitioner's father

gifted the property in favour of the 6th respondent, who is the

mother of the petitioner under a registered gift deed.

2 GPK,J

Subsequently, the 6th respondent, on her own will and out of

love and affection, executed a registered gift deed on

18.01.2006 jointly in favour of the petitioner as well as 7th

respondent and delivered possession of the said property.

4. Similarly, the 6th respondent also executed another gift

deed jointly in favour of the petitioner and 7th respondent with

regard to the property bearing Municipal No. 12-2-783/1,

admeasuring 185.33 sq.yds or equivalent to 154.95 sq.meters,

situated at Rethi Bowli, Hyderabad. The 6threspondent further

executed another gift settlement deed jointly in favour of the

petitioner and his brother with regard to property situated at

Gudimalkapur, Mehdipatnam in Municipal bearing No.12-2-

752/A/1/A/6 which is registered on 30.07.2009. Thereby

contends that the petitioner and 7th respondent to the best

knowledge of all family members, particularly sisters and

brothers-in-law are in absolute possession and enjoyment of

the said properties. The petitioner further contends that

pursuant to the execution of the gift deeds in their favour, their 3 GPK,J

names are also mutated in the municipal records and they are

regularly paying all statutory municipal taxes.

5. At this juncture, after the demise of the petitioner's

father, the petitioner has taken responsibility as an elder

brother of last two unmarried sisters and performed their

marriages. The petitioner contends that his sisters received

independent houses in addition to their shares given at the time

of marriages. Thereby contends that for all the practical

purposes, the sisters received more than their respective shares

of the property as per the Islamic Law. As such contends that

they have nothing to do with the properties.

6. Petitioner contends that taking advantage of the

situation, his sisters, with whom the 6th respondent is residing,

made her to execute the cancellation of the subject Gift Deed

at a belated stage for the obvious reasons.

7. The petitioner further contends that on 24.06.2015, he

received a legal notice informing about the cancellation of the

subject Gift Deeds by the 6th respondent and the said legal 4 GPK,J

notice issued to the petitioner and to the 7th respondent, who is

also the absolute owner and possessor of the property under

gift settlement deed executed by the 6th respondent. Pursuant

to the legal notice, he verified the matter and obtained the

copies of the cancellation deed dated 25.05.2015. Aggrieved

by the same, he approached this Court.

8. The 4th respondent/Sub-Registrar filed the counter

stating that at the time of registration of the gift settlement

deeds, the signatures of the donees were not taken in the

records maintained by the 5th respondent. The 4th respondent

contends that there is provision in Article 49(b) of Schedule

1A of the Indian Stamp Act for Revocation of Settlement

Deeds. As per the provision, the cancellations of the

previously registered gift settlement deeds were registered.

The 4th respondent further contends that there is no embargo

on the unilateral cancellation of Sale Deeds under Rule 26 (k)

(i) which came into force w.e.f 29.11.2006 and other

documents are not covered in the rules. Therefore, the 5 GPK,J

allegations of the 4th respondent were not having any authority

in registering the cancellation deeds is incorrect.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for 6th respondent

contends that on account of misunderstandings, the

6th respondent cancelled the aforesaid 3 Gift Deeds. After

intervention of family elders and common friends and well

wishers, all the misunderstandings are settled. As such the 6th

respondent has absolutely no objection to retain the Gift Deeds

in favour of the petitioner and 7th respondent.

10. The counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment

reported in the matter of Ediga Chandrasekhar Gowd Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that the procedure prescribed under the Rule 26 (i)

(k) (i) of the Rules framed under the Registration Act to cover

the agreement of sale/executory contracts or agreement for

sale cum GPA the procedure stipulated under the Act need to

be followed.

2017 (4) ALD 12 6 GPK,J

10. Learned counsel further relies upon the various

judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Thota Ganga Lakshmi and another Vs. Government of

Andhra Pradesh 2 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 concerned. Following the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Lakshmi (supra), the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh has also considered the issue in

Writ Petition No.13939 of 2022 dated 24.10.2024 and Second

Appeal No.216 of 2020 dated 13.09.2022, (2012) 2 ALT 57

and Judgment passed by this court in W.P.No.27204 of 2015

dated 22.08.2025.

11. Having regard to the contentions advanced by the

respective parties, Rule 26(i) (k) (i) of the Rules framed under

the Registration Act 1908 reads as under:

" (i) 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

2010 15 SCC 207 7 GPK,J

cancellation deeds are executed by all the executants 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 contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale:

Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executants 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."

12. A perusal of the above Rule indicates that a registered

sale deed has to be cancelled by a competent Court and the

cancellation deed has to be registered. The concerned parties

are to be notified before such cancellation.

13. In the present case, a perusal of the record discloses that

neither there was any direction by the competent Court nor

there was a proper notice to that effect to the parties

concerned, except a legal notice issued to the petitioner and

the 7th respondent, that too after the cancellation of the gift 8 GPK,J

deeds. Further, the 6th respondent by her counter-affidavit

stated that the cancellation of the gift deeds is a mistake on

account of some misunderstandings.