Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Between vs $Gottipati Anjana on 6 May, 2026
Judgment reserved on 30-04-2026
Judgment pronounced on 06-05-2026
Judgment uploaded on 06-05-2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SECOND APPEAL No. 3 OF 2024
Between:
Kamma Naga Vasantha Rao,
S/o Subba Rao, Hindu, 40 years,
Cultivation, R/o Palaparru Village,
Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh. ... Appellant
AND
Gottipati Anjana,
W/o Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu,
58 years, Cultivation,
R/o Karamchedu Village and Mandal,
Prakasam District, and others ... Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronounced : 06-05-2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the
fair copy of the judgment? Yes/No
_________________________
V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
2
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
+SECOND APPEAL No. 3 OF 2024
%Dated: 06-05-2026
#Kamma Naga Vasantha Rao,
S/o Subba Rao, Hindu, 40 years, Cultivation,
R/o Palaparru Village, Pedanandipadu Mandal,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ... Appellant
VERSUS
$Gottipati Anjana,
W/o Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu, 58 years,
Cultivation, R/o Karamchedu Village & Mandal,
Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, and others ... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N.Phanindra Kumar
^Counsel for respondent No. 1 : Sri Ramineni Sudheer
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. (2007) 8 SCC 155
2. (2025) 2 SCC 787
3. (2024) 14 SCC 225
4. AIR 2004 SC 1257
5. 2006 (6) ALD 623 (FB)
6. 2012 (1) ALD 90 (SC)
7. (2015) 15 SCC 263
8. (2022) 7 SCC 1
9. AIR 1961 SC 787
3
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No. 3 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment
dated 31-10-2023 in A.S.No. 7 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned VI
Additional District Judge (FTC), Bapatla (for short, ‘the appellate Court’),
confirming the decree and judgment dated 13-11-2015 in O.S.No. 107 of 2005
on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla (for short, ‘the
trial Court’).
2. The appellant herein is defendant No. 2, respondent No. 1 herein is the
plaintiff, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein are defendant Nos. 3 to 5 and
respondent No. 5 herein is defendant No. 1 in O.S.No. 107 of 2005 on the file
of the trial Court. During pendency of the suit before the trial Court, defendant
No. 1 died and defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were added as legal-representatives of
deceased defendant No. 1 as per the orders in I.A.No. 1109 of 2008 dated
20-11-2009.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No. 107 of 2005 on the file of the trial
Court for declaring that she is the owner of the plaint schedule property by
virtue of registered gift settlement deed dated 19-06-1989 executed by
defendant No. 1 in her favour, for consequential relief of possession from the
defendants after the death of defendant No. 1, for future profits and for costs.
4. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, decreed the suit with costs. Felt
aggrieved of the same, defendant No. 2 in the above said suit filed appeal in
4
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
A.S.No. 7 of 2016 on the file of the appellate Court. The appellate Court
dismissed the first appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by
the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No. 2 in the suit approached this
Court by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be
referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in
O.S.No. 107 of 2005, is as follows:
The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac. 2.25 cents situated in
Palaparru Village of Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District. The plaintiff is
elder sister’s granddaughter of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 had no
female issues and the plaintiff was brought up from her childhood by
defendant No. 1 and her husband and they got her educated and performed
her marriage treating her as if she is their adopted daughter. The plaintiff
pleaded that unfortunately, the only son of defendant No. 1 by name Subba
Rao died and after that, the husband of defendant No. 1 also died and
subsequently, defendant No. 1 and her daughter-in-law filed a suit for partition
of their family properties in O.S.No. 44 of 1994 on the file of the trial Court
which was compromised and in the said compromise, the plaint schedule
property fell to the share of defendant No. 1 and that defendant No. 1 was the
absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.
5
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
The plaintiff further pleaded that out of love and affection, defendant No.
1 conveyed the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff by way of a registered
settlement deed dated 19-06-1989 in a sound and disposing state of mind by
conveying vested right in her favour and she retained the possession during
her lifetime and she created vested remainder rights in favour of the plaintiff
and that delivery of possession was legally postponed till the death of
defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 performed marriage of the plaintiff and
even after the marriage, their relations were cordial as defendant No. 1 used
to come from Karamchedu and staying in her house. She further pleaded that
the settlement deed dated 19-06-1989 was accepted and acted upon. The
plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No. 1, whose mental condition was not
stable, executed a registered revocation deed dated 18-08-1992 without any
cause or to her notice and she executed the registered revocation deed
unilaterally by cancelling the earlier registered gift settlement deed. The
plaintiff further pleaded that subsequently, defendant No. 1 executed a
registered sale deed dated 16-05-2005 in favour of defendant No. 2 and on
knowing the same, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to both the
defendants. Having received the same, the defendants got issued a reply
notice with all false averments and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the
suit.
7. The case of defendant No. 1 as per her written statement is as follows:
6
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
Defendant No. 1 had executed a registered gift settlement deed on
19-06-1989 in favour of the plaintiff keeping life interest in favour of defendant
No. 1 and vested remainder in favour of the plaintiff having with a specific oral
understanding that the plaintiff would properly look after the welfare of
defendant No. 1 but, contrary to the understanding, the plaintiff never cared at
least to see the face of defendant No. 1 and she never visited Palaparru
Village at any point of time and never provided any maintenance to defendant
No. 1. She further pleaded that she had voluntarily executed a registered
revocation deed to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff as the
plaintiff never cared to look after the welfare of defendant No. 1 and except
the plaint schedule property, defendant No. 1 has no other properties and she
never come to Karamchedu at any point of time. Defendant No. 1 further
pleaded that subsequent to cancellation of the registered gift deed, she
alienated the plaint schedule property to defendant No. 2 under a registered
sale deed dated 16-05-2005 and defendant No. 2 is in possession and
enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
8. Defendant No. 2 contended that he purchased the plant schedule
property under a registered sale deed on 16-05-2005 and he has been in
possession and enjoyment of the same.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following
issues for trial:
7
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and for
consequential relief of possession and for future profits as prayed
for?
(ii) Whether the defendant has executed the revocation deed dated
18-08-1992 at the instance of second defendant?
(iii) Whether the suit property as her exclusive property in the eye of
law?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff claims that the said revocation deed dated
18-08-1992 is invalid document?
(v) Whether the defendant has perfected her title over the property
by adverse possession by her long continued, uninterrupted
possession and enjoyment since more than statutory period?
(vi) Whether the defendant has executed the settlement deed dated
19-06-1989 to herself for live with pre-existing right of
maintenance?
(vii) Whether the defendant has got absolute title over the property by
virtue of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act?
(viii) Whether the sale deed is a sham and nominal document?
(ix) Whether the suit is not maintainable according to law and same is
barred by limitation?
8
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
(x) To what relief?"
10. During the course of trial before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,
P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of
the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
11. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of
both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record,
decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, defendant No. 2 in the
aforesaid suit filed the appeal suit in A.S.No. 7 of 2016 on the file of the
appellate Court, wherein the following points came up for consideration:
“(i) Whether the revocation deed dated 18-08-1992 (Ex.A2) executed
by the 1st defendant revoking the settlement deed dated
29-06-1989 (Ex.A1) executed by her in favour of the plaintiff and
the subsequent sale deed dated 16-05-2005 (Ex.A3) executed by
the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant are true, valid and
binding on the plaintiff?
(ii) Whether the 1st defendant has perfected her title to the plaint
schedule property by adverse possession?
(iii) Whether the suit is within time?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration and
other consequential reliefs as prayed for in the suit?
9
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
(v) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Court is
sustainable under law?
(vi) To what relief?”
12. The appellate Court, after hearing the arguments, answered the points,
as above, against the appellant-defendant No. 2 and dismissed the appeal
suit filed by the appellant-defendant No. 2. Felt aggrieved of the same,
defendant No. 2 in O.S.No. 107 of 2005 filed the present second appeal
before this Court.
13. Heard Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel, representing Sri
N.Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant
No. 2, and Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Sri
Ramineni Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1- plaintiff.
14. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor
an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with
law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) could be admitted only when the appellant
satisfies the Court that substantial question of law between the parties arises
in the case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in
the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects
the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the
sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from
difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In Boodireddy
10
VGKR, J.
Chandraiah Vs. Arigela Laxmi1, the Apex Court held that it is not within the
domain of High Court to investigate grounds on which the findings were
arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case
where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible,
one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court
in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where
the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should
not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in
second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and
contents of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of
law.
15. Defendant No. 2 having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 100 of C.P.C., it is for him to meet the above principles and
satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law.
16. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived at by
both the Courts below. Therefore, the grounds urged in the second appeal
are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any
substantial question of law. The contention of the appellant is that the decree
and judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are contrary to
law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decrees
1
(2007) 8 SCC 155
11
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
and judgments passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court as well as
the appellate Court.
17. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff is elder sister’s granddaughter
of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 had no female issues and the plaintiff
was brought up from her childhood by defendant No. 1 and her husband and
they got educated the plaintiff and performed her marriage and later after
some time, the son of defendant No. 1 died. It is also undisputed that
defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property in an
extent of Ac. 2.25 cents situated in Palaparru Village of Pedanandipadu
Mandal. It is also undisputed that defendant No. 1 executed a registered gift
settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule
property out of love and affection without any consideration by giving absolute
rights in favour of the plaintiff by retaining life interest in her favour without any
power of alienation and further, after the death of life estate holder, the plaintiff
has to enjoy the possession of the plaint schedule property. It is also
undisputed that defendant No. 1 executed a registered revocation deed dated
18-08-1992 under Ex.A2 by cancelling the earlier registered gift settlement
deed-Ex.A1. The recitals in Ex.A2-registered revocation deed are that the
plaintiff is her sister’s granddaughter and the plaintiff was brought up by
defendant No. 1 and her husband from her childhood and performed her
marriage and she lost her husband and also her only son and later, the
plaintiff failed to look after her welfare and failed to provide food as per the
understanding in between both of them and on that understanding only, she
12
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
executed the registered gift settlement deed. Defendant No. 1 further
contended that since the plaintiff failed to perform the mutual understanding,
she executed the registered revocation deed cancelling the earlier registered
gift settlement deed dated 19-06-1989. Ex.A2 was executed unilaterally
without giving any notice to the plaintiff and without the knowledge of the
plaintiff. Admittedly, there is no condition in Ex.A1-registered gift settlement
deed that the plaintiff has to look after the welfare of defendant No. 1 and she
has to provide food to defendant No. 1, otherwise the settler is having right to
cancel the registered gift settlement deed. There is no evidence on record to
show that there was an understanding in between the plaintiff and defendant
No. 1 to look after the welfare of defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff and on the
said condition only, defendant No. 1 executed the gift settlement deed. Ex.A1
is not a conditional gift deed.
18. The appellant-defendant No. 2 would contend that the interest of
defendant No. 1 was not safeguarded by the plaintiff during her lifetime and
the same was also expressed by defendant No. 1 in the registered revocation
deed bearing document No. 2248 of 1992 executed by defendant No. 1. As
stated supra, Ex.A1 is not a conditional gift deed and there is no recital in
Ex.A1 deed that the plaintiff has to look after the welfare of the settler,
otherwise the settler is having right to cancel the registered gift deed. There is
no evidence on record to show that Ex.A1 document contains the aforesaid
condition that the plaintiff has to look after the welfare of defendant No. 1 and
13
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
the plaintiff has to attend the needs of defendant No. 1, otherwise the settler is
entitled to revoke the said gift settlement deed.
19. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
defendant No. 2 that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation.
The admitted facts are that the settler/defendant No. 1 died during pendency
of the suit. As per the registered gift settlement deed under Ex.A1, the plaintiff
got absolute right over the plant schedule property and defendant No. 1 is
having limited right of enjoyment only without any power of alienation but,
contrary to the recitals of Ex.A1, defendant No. 1 executed a registered sale
deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 16-05-2005 after cancelling the
registered gift settlement deed unilaterally and on knowing the same, the
plaintiff got issued Ex.A4-legal notice dated 11-06-2005 and defendant Nos. 1
and 2 received the said legal notice and defendant No. 1 got issued a reply
notice and in the same year i.e. on 16-08-2005, the plaintiff filed the suit
seeking the reliefs of declaration of title and also for recovery of possession
and that therefore the suit is not barred by law of limitation. Ex.A2 itself goes
to show that defendant No. 1 executed Ex.A1-registered gift settlement deed
in favour of the plaintiff and no other proof is required. Moreover, to discharge
her burden, the plaintiff got examined one of the attesters in the gift settlement
deed as P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 supports the case of the plaintiff about
the execution of the registered gift settlement deed by defendant No. 1 under
Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff. So far as the alleged right of defendant No. 1
to cancel the gift settlement deed for failure to maintain or look after the donor
14
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
is concerned, admittedly no evidence is produced by defendant No. 1 to show
that at the time of execution of the registered gift settlement deed, there was
such an understanding between the donor/defendant No. 1 and the
donee/plaintiff. In the absence of such an agreement, Section 126 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘the Act of 1882’), cannot be relied
upon when there is no right reserved or understanding entered into between
the donor and the donee. Therefore, it is not open to a settler to revoke a
registered gift settlement deed at her will and pleasure and she has to get it
set aside in a Court of law by putting forward such pleas as bear on the
invalidity of a gift deed.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant No. 2 has
placed reliance on a case law rendered in Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan
Dixit and others2. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has referred to its
earlier judgment rendered in Sudesh Chhikara Vs. Ramti Devi3, wherein the
Apex Court refused to grant the benefit of Section 23 in the absence of an
averment that the transfer in question was subject to a condition for
maintenance of the parents and observed as follows:
“When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a
release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of
looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the
contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without
2
(2025) 2 SCC 787
3
(2024) 14 SCC 225
15
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions
mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer,
existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.”
The present suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is filed in
the year 2005 and the registered gift settlement deed was executed by the
settler/defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff on 19-06-1989 whereas the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act of 2007’), came into force in the
year 2007. Section 23 (1) of the Act of 2007 reads thus:
“Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has
transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition
that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs
to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities
and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have
been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the
option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.”
Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is not at all applicable
to the present case. Moreover, the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid
case relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant
No. 2 are quite different to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
21. In K.Bala Krishnan Vs. K.Kamalam4, the Apex Court held that the gift
having been duly accepted in law and thus being complete, it was irrevocable
4
AIR 2004 SC 1257
16
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
under Section 126 of Transfer of Property Act. Section 126 prohibits
revocation of validly executed gift except in the circumstances mentioned
therein. It was not competent for the donor to have canceled the gift and
executed a Will in relation to the gifted property.
26. In Yanala Malleshwari Vs. Smt. Ananthula Sayamma5, a Full Bench
of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows:
“In this regard, it needs to be noticed that a gift deed on one hand and a sale
deed on the other stand on different footing. Under Section 126 of the
Transfer of Property Act, it is competent for a Donor to suspend or revoke a
gift deed executed by him whereas similar facility is not available in case of a
sale deed. Gift is a transfer without any monetary consideration whereas
under a sale transaction, mutual rights and obligations exist as between a
vendor and vendee. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act prescribes the
manner in which a document can be canceled. What is required to be done
through the decree of a Court cannot be permitted to be undertaken by a
party by himself.
This Court is of the view that if sale deeds, valuable properties are conveyed,
are permitted to be cancelled unilaterally, it would not only result in several
complications, unnecessary litigations and hardship to the affected parties but
also bring about situations having far-reaching implications and unrest in the
society. These aspects do not appear to have been brought to the notice of
the Division Bench which disposed of W.A.No. 972 of 2004. It is felt that the
5
2006 (6) ALD 623 (FB)
17
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
matter needs to be examined either by another Division Bench or if necessary
by a Full Bench.”
27. The above judgment is challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex
Court overruled the same. In Thota Ganga Laxmi and another Vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 6 , the Apex Court held as
follows:
“In this connection, Rule 26 (i) (k) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section
69 of the Registration Act which states:
The registering officer shall ensure at the time of preparation for registration of
cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on sale
before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executants
and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that
such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural
consent or orders of a competent civil or High Court or State or Central
Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered
deed of conveyance on sale provided that the registering officer shall
dispense with the execution of cancellation deed by executants and claimant
parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him
if the cancellation deed is executed by a civil Judge or a Government Officer
competent to execute Government Orders declaring the properties contained
in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be Government or
6
2012 (1) ALD 90 (SC)
18
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
Assigned or Endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision
of law.
A reading of the above rule also supports the observations we have made
above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent Court that the
cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the concerned
parties. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent Court
nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this rule also makes it clear
that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void
and non-est and meaningless transactions.”
28. The ratio laid down in the above decision of the Apex Court is squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the law is very clear
that when the donor executed a gift settlement deed duly registered before
Sub-Registrar and the same is accepted by the donee and if the donor wants
to cancel the said gift settlement deed, he has to approach the civil Court for
cancellation of the gift settlement deed but not by way of execution of
cancellation deed before the Sub-Registrar. In the case on hand, no notice
was issued to the plaintiff i.e. the donee before the execution of revocation
deed before the Sub-Registrar and the donor unilaterally cancelled the above
gift settlement deed after a lapse of three years from the date of execution of
registered gift settlement deed. Therefore, the original of Ex.A2-revocation
deed is void and non-est.
19
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
29. In a case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh7, the
Apex Court held as follows:
“Thus, in the absence of any power conferred on the Registering Authority to
adjudicate any aspect, it is difficult to agree with the view in Thota Ganga
Laxmi (6th supra) that the Registering Authority cannot unilaterally register a
deed of cancellation. In my considered opinion, in the absence of any rule
like the one that is prevalent in the State of Andhra Pradesh, which
commands the Registering Officer to ensure at the time of preparation for
registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of
conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed
by all the executants and claimant parties to the previously registered
conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by
declaration showing natural consent, the Registering Authority or the superior
authority cannot refuse to register a deed of cancellation solely on the ground
that the claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance are not
present or they have not given consent.”
30. In Veena Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. District Registrar and
another8, a Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows:
“A document, once it is registered, can be cancelled or set aside only by a
civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Upon the registration of the sale deed on
16th April, 2012, the registration authorities are rendered infructuous and
7
(2015) 15 SCC 263
8
(2022) 7 SCC 1
20
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
would have no power to cancel registration even on the ground of fraud or
other irregularities.
The Apex Court further held as follows:
The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged once the
document is registered (see State of U.P. Vs. Raja Mohammad Amir
Ahmad Khan 9 ). There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which
empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the
document was properly presented for registration cannot be re-opened by the
Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a
substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is
not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent
to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power
of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration
Offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no
power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been
registered.
This Court observed that Section 35 of the Registration Act does not confer a
quasi-judicial power on the Registering Officer, who is not expected to
evaluate title or irregularity in the document. As such, the validity of the
registered deed of extinguishment could be placed in issue only before a
Court of competent jurisdiction. On the above facts, this Court upheld the
dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, with an opportunity being
granted to the appellant to pursue a remedy in accordance with law.
9
AIR 1961 SC 787
21
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
Therefore, the decision in Satya Pal Anand has held that once a deed of
extinguishment had been registered by the registering officer, the registering
officer had no power to recall it nor was it amenable to the supervisory control
of the Inspector General of Registration under Section 69 of the Registration
Act.”
31. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions squarely applicable to the
present facts of the case. The law is very clear that Sub-Registrar has no
authority to entertain a cancellation deed for cancelling a registered gift
settlement deed. Therefore, the registered revocation deed said to have been
executed by defendant No. 1/donor to cancel the earlier registered gift
settlement deed-Ex.A1 is null and void and registration authority has no power
to cancel the earlier registered gift settlement deed.
32. In the case on hand, the material on record amply proves that the
plaintiff is elder sister’s granddaughter of defendant No. 1 and out of love and
affection towards the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 executed a registered gift
settlement deed on 19-06-1989 in favour of the plaintiff, whereunder
defendant No. 1 conveyed vested remainder rights to the plaintiff by reserving
life interest for herself. In the case on hand, Ex.A1-gift settlement deed is duly
accepted by the donee/plaintiff and the same is proved by examining one of
the attesters in the gift settlement deed as P.W.2. Furthermore, the execution
of Ex.A1-registered gift settlement deed is not at all disputed by the donor-
defendant No. 1. In Ex.A2-revocation deed itself, the donor-defendant No. 1
admitted about the execution of Ex.A1-registered gift settlement deed. The
22
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
mere fact that the donor-defendant No. 1 had reserved right to enjoy the
property during her lifetime did not affect the validity of the gift settlement
deed.
33. It is also well settled that the gift once completed cannot be
cancelled/revoked subject to Section 126 of the Act of 1882 which provides
the circumstances under which it can be cancelled. The donor and the donee
must have agreed that it shall be revocable only or in part on the happening of
any subsequent event. It cannot be revoked unilaterally at the will of the
donor. In the case on hand, there is no condition in Ex.A1-registered gift
settlement deed that the donor is having right to revoke the gift settlement
deed. It is also an undisputed fact that no notice was issued to the
donee/plaintiff by the donor/defendant No. 1 before the execution of Ex.A2-
revocation deed, that too after lapse of 3 years from the date of execution of
Ex.A1-gift settlement deed. The donor-defendant No. 1 executed Ex.A2-
revocaton deed before the Sub-Registrar. The donor-defendant No. 1 has not
approached the competent civil Court to challenge the said gift settlement
deed by saying that the donee-plaintiff failed to look after her welfare as per
the mutual understanding in between both the parties on the date of gift
settlement deed. The Sub-Registrar entertained the revocation deed without
any authority and cancelled the gift settlement deed. Therefore, the
revocation deed as well as the registration thereof are wholly void, non-est
and meaningless transactions. The transfer of possession of an immovable
property in a registered is not a sine qua non for making a valid gift. Even
23
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
prior to Rule 26 (i) (k) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Rules, 1960, a
registered gift deed could not be revoked or cancelled contrary to Section 126
of the Act of 1882. Instead of approaching the competent civil Court, the
donor-defendant No. 1 simply approached the Sub-Registrar, that too after
lapse of 3 years from the date of execution of Ex.A1-registered gift settlement
deed without giving any notice to the donee-plaintiff. Therefore, the said
revocation deed is nothing but void, non-est and meaningless transaction. In
Ex.A1-gift settlement deed itself, it was recited that defendant No. 1 is not
having any power to alienate the plaints schedule property in favour of third
parties. Therefore, defendant No. 1 has no right to execute Ex.A3-registered
sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 violating the conditions in Ex.A1. Since
the vendor/defendant No. 1 has no right over the plaint schedule property by
the date of the alleged sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2, no valid right
will be transferred to defendant No. 2 in respect of the plaint schedule
property.
34. Both the Courts by giving valid reasons held that the plaintiff is having
valid right and title over the plaint schedule property in view of Ex.A1-
registered gift settlement deed and that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
possession of the plaint schedule property.
35. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the
issues/points against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff do not brook
24
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit
of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were
based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and
there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the
findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial
question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court
as per Section 100 of C.P.C. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not
even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law.
36. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission,
confirming the decrees and judgments of both the Courts below. Three
months time is granted to the appellant-defendant No. 2 to deliver vacant
possession of the plaint schedule property to respondent No. 1-plaintiff.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in
consequence. No costs.
__________________________
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Date: 06.05.2026
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B/O
JSK
25
VGKR, J.
SA_3_2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No. 3 OF 2024
DATE: 06TH MAY, 2026
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B/O
JSKV
