Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Later, the petitioner has reliably learnt that the 4th respondent, with the assistance and connivance of her husband Mr. Tummidi Bulli Govinda Raju and in active collusion and conspiracy with 3rd respondent brought into existence a document styled as Cancellation Deed of Document No.1166 of 2021 and presented it before the 3rd respondent unilaterally to cancel the gift deed without the knowledge or notice to the petitioner and the same was registered on 23.04.2021 vide document No.1858/2021 by the 3rd respondent in respect of the said property. Having come to know the same, the petitioner has got issued legal notice to the respondents 2 to 4 stating that the unilateral cancellation of a registered gift deed is illegal besides being contrary to the Act and Rules made there under, but the respondents did not respond to the notice. Though the 4th respondent issued reply to the legal notice, with baseless allegations which are irrelevant. Thus assailing the action of the 3rd respondent in entertaining the cancellation deed and registering the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

7. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to receive and register the cancellation deed presented solely by the 4th respondent in the absence of mutual consent between the petitioner and the 4th respondent or the order of any competent court. Therefore, the execution of deed of cancellation as well as its registration is wholly void and non-est.

8. Further it is contended by the learned counsel or the petitioner that in the present case, the procedure prescribed in the Rule afore-stated has admittedly not been followed and the petitioner was not put on notice by the 3rd respondent before registering the deed of cancellation executed by the 4th respondent. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court have consistently held that previously registered conveyances transferring right over immovable property cannot be unilaterally cancelled and reprimanded the actions of the registering authorities in entertaining and registering such documents. The Honourable Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi v. Govt. Of A.P.1 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, a cancellation deed can be registered that too after notice to the concerned parties; and unilateral cancellation of the sale deed, as well as registration thereof, are wholly void, non-est and meaningless transactions. Therefore, prayed to set aside the registration of the Cancellation Deed dated 23.04.2021 bearing document No.1858 of 2021 executed by the 4th respondent.

"54: "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for price paid or promised or part paid and part promised."

11. Hence, it is submitted that on a combined reading of the Rule 26 (i)(k)(i) and Section 54 of the T.P. Act, it would be apparent that the prohibition of unilateral registration of cancellation deed would be applicable only to the registered sale deeds conveyed for a price to the vendee. Furthermore, Rule 26 (i)(k)(i) was introduced by the State of A.P vide Gazette notification d. 29.11.2006 after the full bench decision dt.24.10.2006 which was reported in 2006 (6) ALD 623. The substantive issue for consideration before the Hon'ble full bench of this court was only with regard to unilateral cancellation of sale deeds and the intent of the State in introducing Rule 26 (i)(k) (i) is only to protect the purchasers of the property under a sale deed for consideration/price.

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 2020 LAWSuit(AP) 223 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 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."