Bilateral Cancellation Of Registered Gift Deeds Not Prohibited Under Telangana Rules: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has slammed the door on attempts to invalidate bilateral gift cancellations through writ petitions, ruling that consensual revocation by both donor and donee does not require a prior civil court decree. This decision significantly restricts the scope of Registration Act, 1908 challenges against sub-registrars when the complaining party was a signatory to the cancellation deed.

In a hearing presided over by Justice Pulla Karthik, the Court addressed a challenge against the registration of a 'Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed'. The petitioner sought to declare the registration as null-and-void, arguing that the registering authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the cancellation without a civil court mandate.

Key Takeaways

Bilateral Consent Validates Cancellation

Unlike unilateral revocations, a cancellation deed signed by both the donor and donee is legally valid and registrable by the Sub-Registrar without court intervention.

Writ Jurisdiction Limited by Disputed Facts

Claims of 'undue pressure' or 'misrepresentation' in executing a deed are questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated under Constitution of India, 1950.

Laches and Delay Bar Equitable Relief

Approaching the court after a significant delay (12 years in this case) and following the death of the donor is fatal to a petitioner’s claim for extraordinary relief.

Rule 26(i)(k) Interpretation

Registration rules only prohibit unilateral cancellations; they do not bar consensual cancellations where both parties participate in the registration process.

Court Upholds Validity of Consensual Cancellation

The Court scrutinized the petitioner's argument that the Sub-Registrar exceeded authority. It was observed that the petitioner was not a stranger to the transaction but a consenting party who had appeared before the registering officer. The Court clarified that the restrictions against unilateral cancellations under Registration Act, 1908 do not apply when both parties are executants.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The above Rule mandates that the registering authority, while dealing with a cancellation deed of a previously registered deed of conveyance on sale, is required to ensure that such cancellation deed is executed by all the executant and claimant parties thereto, unless it is executed in pursuance an order of a competent Court or under Rule 243. Hence, it is clear that the registering authority cannot entertain or register a Cancellation Deed unilaterally. However, a perusal of the material on record as well as the pleadings of the petitioner clearly discloses that the petitioner himself was present before respondent No.4 on 24.03.2014 and appended his signature to the impugned Cancellation of the Gift Settlement Deed... thus, by no stretch of imagination, the impugned Cancellation of the Gift Settlement Deed can be characterized as a unilaterally executed document."

Directions Issued to the Petitioner

The Court has following directions: "Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing appropriate legal remedy as may be available to him before the competent Civil Court."

Ratio

A bilateral deed of cancellation, voluntarily executed by both the donor and the donee of a previously registered gift deed, is validly registrable under Rule 26(i)(k) of the Telangana Rules under the Registration Act, 1908, and does not necessitate a prior decree from a Civil Court; allegations of coercion or pressure in such bilateral executions constitute disputed questions of fact beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.

Background

The dispute involved a property in Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The petitioner’s father had originally gifted the property to the petitioner in 2009 via a registered deed. However, in 2014, a 'Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed' was registered, signed by both the father (donor) and the son (donee). Simultaneously, the father executed a new gift deed in favour of his wife (respondent No.5), with the petitioner acting as an attesting witness.

Years after his father’s death in 2017, the petitioner challenged the 2014 cancellation, alleging he signed it under 'persistent pressure'. The respondents argued that the petition was a result of 'forum shopping' as civil suits were already pending and pointed out the 12-year delay. The Court relied on Thota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others and Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others ( "(2016) 10 SCC 767": 2016 CaseBase(SC) 398) to distinguish between unilateral and bilateral cancellations, ultimately finding that since the petitioner was a party to the document, the registrar had acted within the law.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.14338 of 2026
Case Title: Toopalle Murali Krishna v. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Chalasani Deepthi, Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration (R1-R4); Sri Thirumal Rao Mamidala, Counsel (R5)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TEL) 20993