WP/23334/2021 of Parigala Anjinamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 March 2026

1. PARIGALA ANJINAMMA,, W/O. PARIGALA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.76/106-A-5-1, GURU RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR-2, KALLUR, SAP CAMP, KALLUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, KALLUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

3. SAVARI ESWARAMMA, W/O. S. RAMADAS, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.76-111-12-2A, GURU RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

Vivekananda Virupaksha Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue

B Siva Kesava Reddy The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri B.Siva Kesava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the registered Gift Deed dated 16.03.2021, bearing Document No. 3813/2021.

3. It is contended that the 2nd respondent cancelled the said Gift Deed based on a unilateral document submitted by the 3rd respondent. The cancellation of the gift deed was executed unilaterally.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent does not have such jurisdiction to cancel a document unilaterally. In the said regard, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.P.Saseendran vs. N.P. Ponnamma1.

5. The learned counsel argues that though the said judgment arises out of a civil suit, reliance can still be placed on the same. Learned counsel further submits that even in proceedings under Article 226, a direction can be issued to the registering authorities for setting aside such documents.

6. In the said regard, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17394 of 2021. A perusal of the same would reflect that this Court, following the judgment in the case of Ediga Chandrasekhar Goud’s case, held by referring to the provisions of Section 126 of the T.P. Act, that unilateral cancellation of a registered document is in violation of the provisions of Rule 26(i)(k) of the Rules framed under the Registration Act, 1908. It also specified that, except in matters falling under 1 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Rule 26(i)(k)(i), cancellation of a registered deed of “conveyance” is not permissible.

7. In the facts of the present case, the document is a conveyance in the nature of a Gift Deed and not a Sale Deed.

8. Having regard to the contentions advanced and in light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.P.Saseendran vs. N.P.Ponnamma (cited supra), as well as the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17394 of 2021, the Writ Petition is allowed and the registered cancellation deed dated 16.03.2021 bearing Document No.3813 of 2021, executed by the 3rd respondent, is hereby set aside.

9. The 2nd respondent is accordingly directed to issue consequential proceedings to cancel the gift deed dated 16.03.2021 and to restore the earlier gift deed bearing Document No.4722 of 2019 dated 18.04.2019.

10. However, this order shall not preclude the unofficial respondent No.3 from agitating her rights before the appropriate forum.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 31.03.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 23334 OF 2021

Date: 31.03.2026 BSK