WP/34327/2017 of Yadali Rajesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 March 2026

1. YADALI RAJESH,, S/O. YADALI RAMBABU AGED 41 YEARS, 0CC : SOFTWARE ENGINEER R/O. 73/14, BOOLEE STREET REID, ACT 2612 AUSTRALIA

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE COMMISSIONER INSPECTOR GENERAL REGISTRATION, STAMPS) ANDHRA PRADESH, 5-59, R.K. SPRING VALLEY APARTMENTS, EDUPUGALLU, KANKIPADU MANDAL VIJAYAWADA

- 521151

3. THE SUBREGISTRAR, KADIYAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

4. VARRE LAKSHMI KANTHAM, AGED 72 YEARS R/O.3-11-14/8, BY PASS ROAD HOLY ESTATES, NEAR SCHOOL KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI

...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to execution of cancellation deed vide Document Nos.1347 of 2017 and 1348 of 2017 before the 3rd

RRR,J W.P.No.34327 of 2017

respondent, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 42684 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders in WP.Mp.No.42684/2017 WP.No.38987/13 dated 01-12-2013 and dismiss the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

2. PILLIX LAW FIRM

3. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

RRR,J W.P.No.34327 of 2017

The Court made the following Order:

The 4th respondent herein, who is the maternal aunt of the petitioner, had executed a deed of gift, dated 24.04.1997, which was registered as document No.1050 of 1997. The 4th respondent had executed another deed of gift, dated 21.04.1997, which was registered as document No.1030 of 1997, in favour of the mother of the petitioner. After the demise of his mother, the said property is said to have devolved upon the petitioner herein.

2. The petitioner has now approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition, seeking cancellation of two deeds, registered as document Nos.1347 & 1348 of 2017, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kadiyam, East Godavari District.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, these deeds of cancellation were executed unilaterally, for setting aside the earlier deeds, in favour of the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner contends that, such a cancellation is not permissible as any such cancellation, would require the participation of both the donor and the donee. He would submit that, he never participated in such execution and as such, unilateral cancellation of the earlier deeds of gift, is impermissible.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would also rely upon Rule 26(k) of the Registration Rules, which has been interpreted by the

RRR,J W.P.No.34327 of 2017

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1.

5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, in which it is stated that, she had never executed any deed of cancellation and the said cancellation deeds, appear to be the work of a third party by the name of Smt. Grace Vimala. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent also states that, he has been instructed to reiterate the averments, raised by the 4th respondent, in her affidavit.

6. In view of the aforesaid statement contained in a sworn affidavit and also in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Ganga Lakshmi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, it must be held that, execution of such deeds of cancellation and registration of such deeds, is clearly barred under Rule 26(k) of the Registration Rules and the Sub-Registrar, by accepting such unilateral cancellation, has violated Rule 26(k) of the Registration Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham, 2 had set out the parameters within which a Suit seeking cancellation of a registered deed, would be maintainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that, where there is a failure, on the part of the Registering Authority to stick to the mandate of Law, the Court would cancel the said Registration.

1 2010 15 SCC 207 2 (2022) 8 SCC 210

RRR,J W.P.No.34327 of 2017

7. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed, cancelling the registration of the deeds of cancellation, dated 04.05.2017, which have been registered as Document Nos.1347 & 1348 of 2017. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

Date:06.03.2026 KPV

RRR,J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.34327 of 2017

06.03.2026

KPV