Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pinnama Raju Ranga Raju, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 May, 2020
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.15003 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent who is the Sub-Registrar, Akiveedu in registering the Revocation Deed bearing document No.2635/2013 dated 28.10.2013 registered on 29.10.2013 revoking the Gift Settlement Deed dated 11.01.2005 executed by 4th respondent without the consent or knowledge of the petitioner and consequential Settlement Deeds executed by 4th respondent in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 8 vide documents bearing No.1069/2014 dated 25.04.2014; document bearing No.1036/2014 dated 23.04.2014 and document bearing No.1037/2014 dated 23.04.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Registration Act and Rules and a consequential order to set aside the Revocation Deed and Settlement Deeds executed by 4th respondent.
2. The petitioner's case is thus:
(a) The 4th respondent is the mother and respondents 6 to 8 are the sisters of petitioner. The 4th respondent filed O.S.No.139/1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram against Akiveedu Gram Panchayat for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of Ac.0.38 cents which is item No.1 and Ac.0.14 cents which is Item No.2 in S.Nos.470/19 and 470/20 situated in Akiveedu Village. The suit was decreed on 12.04.1999 in favour of 4th respondent.2
UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014
(b) Aggrieved, the Akiveedu Gram Panchayat filed A.S.No.2273/1999 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 4th respondent filed Cross-Objections. Pending the said appeal, the 4th respondent executed a Gift Settlement Deed dated 11.01.2005 in favour of petitioner bequeathing the subject properties of the suit. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner got himself impleaded in the appeal as 2nd respondent as per the order dated 19.10.2009 in A.S.M.P.No.1441/2009 and prosecuted the appeal. The said appeal was dismissed and cross-objections filed by 4th respondent were allowed on 11.07.2013.
(c) Aggrieved by the judgment, Akiveedu Gram Panchayat filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed at the admission stage on 09.12.2013. Pursuant to the dismissal of SLP, the petitioner filed E.P.No.12/2014 for execution of the decree in O.S.No.139/1989. In the said E.P., the 4th respondent filed claim petition and the petitioner herein filed counter and the same is pending.
(d) While so, the 4th respondent at the instance of respondents 5 to 8 presented a document on 28.10.2013 before the 3rd respondent styling it as a Revocation of Gift Deed and the 3rd respondent contrary to Rule No.26(k)(i) of the A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Registration Rules) registered the said deed under document No.2635/2013. The said registration is contrary to the Rules because the title in the subject property was already vested in favour 3 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 of the petitioner on 11.01.2005 under the registered Gift Deed. Therefore, the 4th respondent has no power to cancel the said document unilaterally and without notice to the petitioner. The 5th respondent who is the husband of 8th respondent is behind the litigation. He is also one of the attestors of Revocation Deed. Subsequently, the 4th respondent executed three documents i.e., two documents on 23.04.2014 and one document on 25.04.2014 styling them as Settlement Deeds in favour of respondents 6 to 8. The petitioner came to know all the aforesaid collusive acts on 01.05.2014 and thereafter he obtained certified copies of the documents.
Hence the writ petition.
3. Pending the writ petition, the 4th respondent Pinnamaraju Suryakanthamma died on 12.06.2019 vide copy of Death Certificate dated 17.06.2019 issued by Registrar of Births & Deaths, Dumpagadapa, West Godavari District. She is survived by the writ petitioner, who is the son, and respondents 6, 7 & 8 who are her daughters. The other daughters filed I.A.No.1/2019 claiming that as per the Settlement Deeds dated 23.04.2014 and 25.04.2019 their mother settled some extents of land to them, and the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 and later their mother executed a registered Will dated 10.03.2015 vide document No.49/BK3/2015 confirming the execution of the Settlement Deeds mentioned supra and therefore, they may be permitted to come on record as unofficial respondents 9 to 13. The said petition is allowed and since Smt. Penumatcha Lalitha 4 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 Kumari is already on record as 7th respondent, the other daughters were permitted to come on record as unofficial respondents 9 to 12.
4. Respondents 2 & 3 filed counter opposed the writ petition contending as follows:
(a) Rule 26(k)(i) of the Registration Rules is not applicable in the instant case since this is a case of revocation of Settlement Deed, but not Sale Deed. These respondents were not served with any order of the Court of law restraining them from proceeding with the registration of cancellation of Settlement Deed in question. Besides unilateral cancellation or revocation of the Gift Settlement Deed is valid under Article 49 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamps Act.
(b) It is contended that the respondent has not acted contrary to the rules and regulations as alleged by the petitioner. Until the respondent is restrained by any order of the Court, there is no legal obligation on his part to raise objection against registration of any document presented before him with requisite stamp duty and registration fee.
(c) The writ petitioner without exhausting the alternative remedies, has approached this Court directly which is not correct.
Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. The 4th respondent filed W.P.M.P.No.1939/2014 to vacate the interim order dated 05.06.2014 and along with it filed counter contending thus:
5
UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014
(a) The writ petition is not maintainable as effective and alternative remedy is available to petitioner under common law.
(b) The averment in the writ petition that the 4th respondent executed Gift Settlement Deed dated 11.01.2005 in favour of petitioner is not true and on the other hand the petitioner brought into existence the said Gift Deed by playing fraud on 4th respondent. She never intended to execute the Gift Deed in his favour by bequeathing the subject properties. The petitioner, by taking undue advantage of her old age, played havoc behind her.
(c) The petitioner averments that the petitioner alone pursued the appeal upto Supreme Court is not correct. In fact, the SLP preferred by Akiveedu Gram Panchayat was dismissed by the Supreme Court at the threshold.
(d) The contention of petitioner that no notice was issued to him before cancellation of the Gift Deed is not tenable because 26(k)(i) applies to the cancellation of Sale Deeds, but not to the Gift Deeds.
His further averments that he acquired title to the property and the 4th respondent never questioned the Gift Deed at any point of time and therefore, she has no power to cancel the said document unilaterally and that the 5th respondent was behind the litigation are all false.
(e) The 4th respondent is legally wedded wife of late Pinnamaraju Venkat Raju and they are blessed with eight children. Her husband was the absolute owner of 4 items of the property. As her sons i.e., the petitioner and Krishnam Raju addicted to vices and 6 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 spoiling the properties and harassing the parents, her husband executed registered Will on 08.03.1985 bequeathing the aforesaid properties in her favour and later he died on 27.09.1988 and she became absolute owner of the said properties.
(f) While so, when the 4th respondent was in deep sorrow on account of the death of her husband, Akiveedu Gram Panchayat grabbed some properties. So she requested her eldest son-in-law to run the Court case and executed a GPA No.168/89 dated 25.11.1989. Prior to that her son-in-law and the writ petitioner executed an unregistered Deed of understanding on 03.11.1989 regarding meeting of Court expenses. Subsequently the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.139/1989 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram against Akiveedu Gram Panchayat seeking declaration and possession of her properties. Her son-in-law looked after the said suit on her behalf and same was decreed on 12.04.1999. Against the said judgment, Akiveedu Gram Panchayat preferred an appeal in A.S.No.2273/1999 before the High Court of A.P. wherein a stay was granted.
(g) After the death of her husband, the 4th respondent was residing with her daughters. The petitioner never looked after her welfare and provided any maintenance. In fact, he developed contempt against her as her husband executed Will in her favour. As her 4th daughter Krishna Veni lost her husband, the 4th respondent 7 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 settled 56 square yards of site under a registered Settlement Deed dated 06.12.2004.
(h) During Sankranthi Festival in the year 2005, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent and informed that he would look after the appeal pending before High Court and obtained her signatures and thumb impressions on blank papers on 11.01.2005. She was virtually confined to bed at that time.
(i) On 11.07.2013, the High Court of A.P. dismissed A.S.No.2273/1999. Then the 4th respondent thought of distributing the property in terms of understanding dated 03.11.1989. However, to her shock the petitioner informed as if he obtained registered Gift Deed dated 11.01.2005. He played fraud on her in obtaining the said Gift Deed. He also got cancelled the GPA No.168/1989 which was never cancelled by her. The market value of the property related to Gift Deed is worth Rs.1.10 Crores. Hence, she issued a legal notice dated 04.09.2013 calling upon petitioner to cooperate with her to cancel the Gift Deed. Since he kept quite she executed the Revocation Deed dated 28.10.2013.
(j) The 4th respondent filed E.P.No.181/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram to execute the decree in O.S.No.139/1989. However, the petitioner filed another E.P.No.12/2014 seeking execution of the same decree, wherein she filed objections about the maintainability of said E.P. Subsequently the 4th respondent executed registered Settlement Deeds dated 8 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 23.04.2014 and 25.04.2014 in favour of her daughters. At this juncture he filed the writ petition which is not maintainable.
(k) The writ petition is not maintainable for the reasons firstly, the Gift Deed was an invalid one as by the date of alleged Gift Deed dated 11.01.2005 the property was in possession of Akiveedu Gram Panchayat. Secondly, 26(k)(i) has no application for cancellation of Gift Deeds. Thirdly, under Section 23 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the senior citizens are empowered to cancel registered Deeds executed in favour of their children who obtained by fraud. Fourthly, in view of the complicated questions of facts and law involved, the petitioner shall seek remedy under common law. Fifthly, since EPs are pending before Civil Court, the writ is not maintainable. Finally the writ is not maintainable for non-joinder of Akiveedu Gram Panchayat.
6. Heard Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration representing the respondents 1 to 3, and Sri G.Ronald Raju, counsel for the respondents 5 to 12.
7. Severely questioning the validity of Revocation Deed, learned counsel for petitioner Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar would contend that unilateral revocation of gift deed is not permissible under law as it is against 26(k)(i) of the Registration Rules. He would contend that though the said Rule speaks of conveyance on sale, still in a number of judicial pronouncements, it was held that the said rule is applicable 9 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 to other modes of conveyance such as gifts, mortgages, exchange etc. Therefore, at the threshold the revocation of gift deed itself is void and non est. Consequently the Settlement Deeds and Will executed by the 4th respondent are also legally untenable. He would vehemently contend that if the 4th respondent wanted to challenge the Gift Deed, she ought to have filed a civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Since she is no more, the unofficial respondents, if they are advised, can approach the Civil Court. He placed reliance on Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 and Ediga Chandrasekar Gowd v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, Hyderabad2. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition.
8. Per contra, Sri G.Ronald Raju, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 5 to 12 while supporting the Revocation Deed argued that, the Gift Settlement Deed dated 11.01.2005 was vitiated by fraud inasmuch as the petitioner cheated his mother and obtained her thumb impressions on blank papers and created the Gift Deed. Therefore, she gave a legal notice calling upon him to cooperate with her to execute a revocation deed. Since he did not come forward, she was obliged to execute the Revocation Deed which is perfectly valid in the eye of law. It is also argued that the cancellation of Gift Deed is valid also under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is further argued that 26(k)(i) is applicable to 1 (2016) 10 SCC 767 2 2017 (3) ALT 420 10 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 the Sale Deeds but not to the Gift Deeds. Therefore, the petitioner has to file a civil suit before common law Court and writ petition is not maintainable. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Learned Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3 argued that 26(k)(i) of the Registration Rules has no application to the gift deeds and hence, 3rd respondent was legally justified in registering the impugned Revocation Deed.
10. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in this writ petition to allow?
11. Point: The crux of the matter is whether the 4th respondent can unilaterally execute Revocation Deed cancelling the Gift Deed earlier executed by her in favour of writ petitioner. In this regard Rule 26(k)(i) of the A.P. Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 reads thus:
"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) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d) xxx
(e) xxx
(f) xxx
(g) xxx
(h) xxx
(i) xxx
(j) xxx [(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 and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing mutual consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or 11 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 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.
(ii) Save in the manner provided for above no cancellation deed of a previously registered deed of conveyance on sale before him shall be accepted for presentation for registration."
(a) This Rule lays down that when at the time of presentation of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyance on sale, the registering Officer shall ensure that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale. He shall also ensure 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. There can be no demur that this Rule basically envisages the procedure for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on sale. However, having regard to the employment of the word "conveyance" in the Rule, the judicial pronouncements were made to the effect that the procedure prescribed in this Rule equally applies to other forms of conveyance such as gifts, mortgages, exchange etc. In some judgments which dealt with the Sale Deeds it was held that unilateral cancellation is hit by Rule 26(k)(i). 12
UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014
(b) In Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh3 deprecating the unilateral cancellation of Sale Deed through cancellation deed, the Apex Court observed thus:
"3. In our opinion, there was no need for the Appellants to approach the civil Court as the said cancellation deed dated 4.8.2005 as well as registration of the same was wholly void and non est and can be ignored altogether. For illustration, if 'A' transfers a piece of land to 'B' by a registered sale deed, then, if it is not disputed that 'A' had -the title to the land, that title passes to 'B' on the registration of the sale deed (retrospectively from the date of the execution of the same) and 'B' then becomes the owner of the land. If 'A' wants to subsequently get the sale deed cancelled, he has to file a civil suit for cancellation or else he can request 'B' to sell the land back to 'A' but by no stretch of imagination, can a cancellation deed be executed or registered. This is unheard of in law."
(c) In Fazalullah khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh4, a learned single Judge of the High Court of A.P. while observing that the unilateral cancellation of Gift Deed by way of Revocation Deed is against law, held thus:
"13. A perusal of the above said Rule discloses that it covers not only the sale deeds, but also transactions of conveyance, which obviously would take in its fold the transactions of gift also. It has already been mentioned that whether it is a sale deed or gift deed, they are executed by the owners of the property and the beneficiaries there under get the title by way of transfer. The only difference is that a sale is supported by consideration whereas in case of gift, consideration in terms of money or other tangible asset is absent. Recently, a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would apply to the deeds of the gift also."
(d) In Haji Mohammed Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh5 while holding that unilateral cancellation of registered Gift Deed by way of a cancellation deed is illegal, observed that the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (supra 3) equally 3 MANU/SC/1267/2010 = 2012 (1) ALD 90 4 MANU/AP/0919/2012 = AIR 2012 AP 163 5 2011 Lawsuit (AP) 853 = 2012 (2) ALT 57 13 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 applies to unilateral cancellation of Gift Deeds also. It was observed thus:
"2. The Supreme Court, in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Govt. of A.P. (1) Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 791 of 2007 and batch, held that if any sale deed is required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by way of a civil suit for cancellation, but no cancellation deed can be unilaterally executed or registered. The Supreme Court, after referring to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Registration Rules, held that it is only when the earlier sale deed is cancelled by a competent court can a cancellation deed be registered that too after notice to the concerned parties; and unilateral cancellation of the sale deed, as well as registration thereof, were wholly void, non est and meaningless transactions. The observations of the Supreme Court, aforementioned, made in the context of sale deeds would equally apply to unilateral cancellation of gift deeds also. Unilateral cancellation of the gift deed in the present case must therefore be, and is, declared to be void. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondent from invoking the jurisdiction of the competent civil court for cancellation of the subject gift deed. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly."
(e) In Kolli Rajesh Chowdary v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department6, a learned single Judge of this Court observed that Rule 26(k)(i) applies to the Gift Settlement Deed in question also. He further observed that the analogy which the Hon'ble Apex Court applied in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (supra 3) equally applies to the Gift Deeds.
(f) Similar view was expressed in the cases of Garagaboyina Radhakrishna v. The District Registrar, Visakhapatnam7; Pedda Jagannadha Rao v. Renanki Janikamma8; Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta v. The District Registrar, Srikakulam9. 6 2019 (2) ALT 290 (AP) 7 MANU/AP/0438/2012 = AIR 2012 AP 189 8 MANU/AP/1183/2006 = 2007 (3) ALD 442 9 2012(4) ALT 435 = MANU/AP/0141/2012 14 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014
(g) In Gaddam Laxmaiah v. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps10, the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh was dealing with the question whether unilateral cancellation of Development Agreement- cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) and registration thereof under the Registration Act is permissible in law. The Division Bench observed thus:
"27. xxxx .... A deed of cancellation, in our opinion, amounts to rescission of contract and if the issue in question is viewed from that angle, in the light of the provisions of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, any rescission must be only bilateral. We agree with the view expressed by the Madras High Court in E.K. Kalyan v. Inspector General of Registration AIR 2010 Madras 18 (DB). Having regard to the above provisions, in our opinion, a registered sale deed or any other document such as Development Agreement- cum-GPA, which creates right in favour of the party in the subject-matter of document, if sought to be cancelled, registration of such deed must be at the instance of both the parties. In other words, even execution of a deed of cancellation of the registered document which created rights in favour of the other party in the subject-matter of the document, cannot be registered unilaterally but it should be bilateral. In any case, the document, which is compulsorily registrable, some restrictions, in our opinion, must be applied even for cancellation of such document as well. The Commissioner has, therefore, rightly issued the circular, restricting registration of a deed of cancellation of any document, such as Development Agreement-cum-GPA, at the instance of only one/first party to such document. We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any provision specifically empowering registering authority to entertain a document of cancellation for registration, without signatures of both the parties, a deed of cancellation cannot be entertained and registered and that the impugned circular issued by the Inspector General is binding on all parties. Having so observed, we find no infirmity in the impugned circular issued by the Commissioner/Inspector General, in exercise of the powers of general superintendence contemplated by Section 69(1) of the Registration Act. By issuing the impugned circular, in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Registration Act, this very objective, in our opinion, sought to be achieved.
28. Thus, having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and provisions of the Act, in our opinion, whenever registered documents such as Development Agreement-cum-GPA, is sought to be cancelled, execution and registration of such a document/deed must be at the instance of both the parties i.e., bilaterally and not unilaterally. If a deed of cancellation is allowed to be registered without the knowledge and consent of other party to the deed/document, sought to be cancelled, such registration would cause violation to the principles of natural justice and lead to unnecessary litigation, emanating therefrom. In any case, as stated earlier, in the absence of any provision specifically empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration without the signatures of both the parties to the document, the deed cannot be entertained. Moreover, if the Registrars are allowed to entertain a deed of cancellation for registration without signatures of both the parties to the document sought to be cancelled, such power would tantamount to conferring 10 2018(1) ALD 532 = MANU/AP/1096/2016 15 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 the power to decide disputed questions between the parties. No party to the document would ever approach for cancellation of registered document unilaterally unless there is a dispute with the other party in respect of the subject matter of the document. In the result, we answer the question in the negative. In other words, we hold that registration and unilateral cancellation of documents such as Development Agreement-cum-General of Power of Attorney under the Registration Act is not permissible in law."
(h) In Ediga Chandrasekar Gowd's case (2 supra), a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad was considering the question whether a deed cancelling an Agreement of Sale-cum-Irrevocable GPA (with possession) unilaterally by its executants be registered by the District Registrar and whether such registration by him is valid in law. Learned Judge referring to several decisions expressed his opinion as follows:
45. Thus, the term "conveyance" has a wider connotation and it would certainly include deeds of "sale"/"gift"/"exchange" by which property is transferred from one person to another.
46. If the rule making authority, which framed Rule 26(i)(k)(i), intended that the said rule should apply only to "sale"/"gift"/"exchange" deeds, it would have mentioned these category of documents specifically. There was no necessity to use the words "conveyance on sale".
47. The obvious intention of the rule making authority appears to be to cover transactions which are not merely in the nature of deeds of sale. It thus, in my opinion, intended to cover not only "gift"/"exchange" deeds but also "agreements for sale"/executory contracts or "agreements for sale-cum-General Power of Attorney"
or "agreements for sale-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney."
(i) In Satya Pal Anand's case (supra 1), the Apex court among other was considering the question whether the Sub-Registrar had no authority to register the extinguishment deed dated 09.08.2001 unilaterally presented by the respondent Society for registration with an intention to cancel the earlier allotment of house plot to the appellant's mother. In that context, the Apex Court observed that the 16 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (3 supra) has no application as in that case a specific rule i.e., Rule 26(k)(i) of the A.P. Registration Rules, 1960 was dealt with which is not there in Madhya Pradesh Rules.
(j) Thus, on a conspectus of the jurisprudence, the judicial opinion consistently is that Rule 26(k)(i) though not specifically referred to other forms of conveyance other than Sale Deed, still the said rule applies to such conveyances like gift deed, Agreement to Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) etc. For this reason, the contention of learned counsel for respondents that in conveyance of sale, the rights of the parties will be crystallized but in gift that is not the case and therefore, gift can be revoked at any time and further, Rule 26(k)(i) has no specific application to gift deeds cannot be accepted. In gift also the rights will be crystallized in favour of the donee. In this case, the cancellation was executed long after the gift deed was registered. Therefore, such unilateral cancellation is a procedural violation and against the tenets of law and revocation deed is liable to be set aside. It must be reiterated that the revocation or cancellation deed in this case is liable to be set aside not on merits but for procedural violation of Rule 26(k)(i). Consequently the Settlement Deeds executed by the 4th respondent in favour of respondents 6 to 12 which documents depend upon the validity of cancellation deed are also liable to be set aside. However, the parties 17 UDPR, J WP.No.15003 of 2014 are at liberty to question the validity of Gift Deed on the ground of fraud etc. by resorting to common law Court.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the Revocation of Gift Settlement Deed dated 28.10.2013 is set aside for procedural violation and consequently the settlement deeds bearing Nos.1036/2014 and 1037/2014 dated 23.04.2014 and 1069/2014 dated 25.04.2014 are also set aside. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from challenging the validity of Gift Settlement dated 11.01.2005 executed by 4th respondent in favour of writ petitioner on the ground of fraud and other related grounds before a common law Court if they are so advised. In such case, the validity of Settlement Deeds executed by 4th respondent in favour of respondents 6 to 12 will depend upon the result of such proceedings. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 21.05.2020 MS/MVA