(Prayer: 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 of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in admitting, registering the revocation deed dated 04.08.2016 vide Document No.2841 of 2016 unilaterally executed by the 3rd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the 2" respondent not to entertain documents in respect of the property H.No.5-1-42, Gurramvari Street-2, 5th Ward, Kavali Town, Nellore District to an extent of 23 Ankanams (184 Squire Yards), S.No.969 of Kavali Bit-1 village

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 11714 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 direct the 3rd respondent not to enter in to the property H.No.5-1-42, Gurramvari Street-2, 5th Ward, Town, Nellore District to an extent of 23 Ankanams (184 Squire Yards), S.No.969 of Kavali Bit-1 village pending disposal of the writ petition

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 11715 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 stay the revocation deed dated 04.08.2016 vide Document No.2841 of 2016 executed by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 17-03-2017 passed in W.P.No.9457 of 2017 in the interest of justice and pass)

1. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Kopparthi Sumathi, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner is the daughter of the 3rdrespondent. The Settlement Deed, dated 10.06.2010, had been executed by the 3rd respondent, in favour of the petitioner whereby about 184 sq.yards of land bearing House No.5-1-42, Gurramvari Street-2, 5th Ward, Kavali Town, Nellore District was settled on the petitioner herein. It is the case of the petitioner that this property was given to her towards pasupukumkuma, in relation to her marriage.

3. The 3rd respondent had subsequently executed a deed of cancellation of gift on 04.08.2016 unilaterally. Aggrieved by the said deed of cancellation, which was registered by the 2nd respondent, as document bearing No.2841 of 2016, the petitioner has approached this Court for a Writ of Mandamus to be issued to 2nd respondent declaring the registration of such a document to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and to further direct the 2nd respondent-Sub Registrar not to entertain document in relation to this property. The petitioner contends that Rule 26(k) of the Registration Rules stipulates that cancellation cannot be registered, unless all the parties to the original document, which is sought to be cancelled are present before the Sub-Registrar and execute the said deed of cancellation. It is further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Ganga laxmi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh((2010)15 SCC 207:2013) 1 SCC (Civ)1063)., had held that a valid transfer, by way of a registered alienation, cannot be cancelled unilaterally and at the instance of one of the parties to the suit document. It is also contended that this judgment was followed by this Court in the case of Kapuganti Jagannadha Gupta vs. The District Registrar, Srikakulam and Ors.( 2012 (4) ALT 435)

4. Smt. Kopparthi Sumathi, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that the property had been settled on the petitioner, on the assurance and belief that the petitioner would look after the 3rd respondent and his wife. However, the petitioner after obtaining the said property had totally neglected the 3rd respondent and his wife due to which the 3rd respondent had cancelled the original settlement deed. She would submit that the 3rd respondent and his wife are in dire straits and require the protection of this Court. Smt. K. Sumathi would submit that the 3rd respondent has also approached the Revenue Divisional Officer in June, 2025, under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Seniors Citizens Act, 2007 for cancellation of the settlement deed and for the 3rd respondent and his wife to be put in possession of the said property.

5. Any deed of alienation including a deed of gift, would finally and conclusively transfer all rights in the property, under transfer, to the beneficiary of the document. Once such a transfer takes place, the executor of the document, cannot unilaterally cancel the said document as he would have no further right or title over the property. Recognizing this fact Rule 26(k) had been introduced in the Registration Rules. This rule clearly stipulates that once a transfer of immovable property has been completed, by virtue of a registered deed of alienation, the executor of such a deed of alienation cannot cancel the same unilaterally and that the Sub-Registrar should ensure the presence of all the parties of the original deed of alienation before registering any deed of cancelation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh’s case, had essentially held the same.

6. In the circumstances, it must be held that the unilateral cancellation of the deed of settlement, dated 10.06.2010, by way of a Revocation Deed, dated 04.08.2016, would not be permissible and registration of such a document is equally impermissible.

7. In the circumstances, the said document would have to be treated to be in an invalid document which does not confer any rights over any person nor take away any of the rights granted to the petitioner, by virtue of the deed of settlement, dated 10.06.2010.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent not to entertain any documents that may be executed or presented before the 2nd respondent, on the basis of the Revocation Deed, dated 04.08.2016. Needless to say, this court has not gone into the rights and claims of the 3rd respondent, in relation to the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the same is left open to be determined by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in any application that may be made by the 3rd respondent in this regard. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.