The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a registered gift deed, once accepted by the donee, cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the donor through a revocation deed executed before the Sub-Registrar. The Court clarified that such revocation deeds are void unless the gift deed is first set aside by a competent civil court.
Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao delivered the judgment while dismissing a first appeal arising from a partition suit involving a dispute over the nature of family property and the validity of gift deed cancellations.
Legal Issue
The primary issues before the Court were whether the suit properties were ancestral joint family properties or the father’s self-acquired properties, and whether the donor could validly revoke registered gift deeds by executing unilateral revocation deeds before the Sub-Registrar.
Background
The plaintiff filed a partition suit claiming that the suit schedule properties were ancestral coparcenary properties. The father admitted that certain properties could be partitioned but alleged that his wife had fraudulently obtained two registered gift settlement deeds from him. He claimed to have subsequently cancelled those deeds by executing registered revocation deeds.
One of the daughters disputed this claim, contending that the properties were the father’s self-acquired assets and that he had voluntarily gifted them to his wife out of love and affection. She further submitted that the gifts had been accepted, the properties had been mutated in the mother’s name, and a portion of the gifted property had later been sold to her.
The trial court dismissed the partition suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the properties were ancestral and that the revocation deeds were legally valid. The plaintiff challenged this decision before the High Court.
Court’s Decision
The High Court upheld the trial court’s findings and held that there is no legal presumption that property is joint family property merely because the parties belong to a Hindu joint family. The burden of proving that a property is ancestral lies on the person making such a claim.
After examining the evidence, the Court noted that the plaintiff himself had admitted that several properties were purchased by his father from his own earnings. The plaintiff’s witnesses also acknowledged that the properties were self-acquired. Accordingly, the Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the properties were ancestral.
On the issue of revocation, the Court relied on Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, along with Supreme Court precedents, and held that once a registered gift deed is accepted by the donee, the donor cannot cancel it by simply executing a revocation deed before the Sub-Registrar.
The Court further clarified that the Sub-Registrar has no authority to register unilateral cancellation deeds for validly executed gift deeds. If a donor alleges fraud or any other legal ground for cancellation, the appropriate remedy is to approach a competent civil court seeking cancellation of the gift deed.
Holding the revocation deeds to be void and non est, the Court affirmed the validity of the original gift deeds and dismissed the appeal.
Case: Davuluri Venkateswara Rao v. Davuluri Veeraiah (Died) & Ors.
