Allowed

Mohd Iqbal, v. District Registrar of Hyderabad

Telangana HC12 Apr 2017WP/19175/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the registration of a cancellation deed. Relying on precedent, the Court held that unilateral cancellation of a gift deed without notice to the donee is illegal. Consequently, the registration of the cancellation deed was set aside and the petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The registration of document No.3851 of 2009 (cancellation deed) is set aside as invalid due to lack of notice to the donee.

Mohd Iqbal, Vs District Registrar of Hyderabad — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.19175 of 2012

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the acts of the 1^st respondent in registering Document No.3851 of 2009, dated 14.12.2009 cancelling the Gift Deed dated 07.02.2007 executed in favour of the petitioner by the mother of respondents 2 and 3 by name Fatima Begum.

¶5

Though notices by registered post with acknowledgment due were taken out to respondents 2 and 3, they have been returned with endorsement that the addressees have refused. Therefore, they are deemed to be served.

¶6

Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Haji Mohammed Ahmed v State of Andhra Pradesh and others¹ wherein this Court held that unilateral cancellation of gift deed by execution of cancellation deed, without notice to the petitioner/donee, is void and illegal and that the only option available to the executant of the gift deed is to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the Gift Deed.

¶7

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1^st respondent does not dispute this legal position.

¶8

In the present case, Smt Fatima Begum had executed a Gift Settlement Deed on 07.02.2007 in favour of the petitioner and the same was unilaterally cancelled by executing the document dated 14.12.2009, which has been registered by the 1^st respondent as

¶9

1 2012(2) ALD 230

¶10

¶11

document No.3851 of 2009. Since admittedly this has been done without notice to the petitioner, in view of the decision referred to above, I hold that the action of the 1^st respondent in registering the said cancellation deed being document No.3851 of 2009 is not valid and the said cancellation deed is accordingly set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions in the petition, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

____________________________________
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 12.04.2017
kvrm

Mohd Iqbal, v. District Registrar of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Iqbal, v. District Registrar of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aliya Maryam Vs Sri Vijay Sekhar

Bobba Sundarrao S/o. Venkatappa Naidu Vs The Commisioner , Appeals Office of the Chief

V.Anandam, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C Rep by its Vc and MD

The District Collector, Chittoor. Vs The Commissioner of Appeals

P. Buchi Reddy, Vs Sri Rama Krishana Rao Ias.

The Mandal Revenue officer, Vs The Commissioner, Appeals