Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: revocation deed in Pinnama Raju Ranga Raju, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 May, 2020Matching Fragments
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.
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 UDPR, J 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 (2016) 10 SCC 767 2017 (3) ALT 420 UDPR, J 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: