Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"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," Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a donor cannot unilaterally revoke a registered gift settlement deed through a cancellation deed filed before the Sub-Registrar.

A bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao observed that once a gift is completed and accepted by the donee, it can only be set aside by a competent Civil Court under specific legal grounds, and the registering authority has no inherent power to recall or cancel a previously registered conveyance.

The dispute involved a registered gift settlement deed executed in 1989 by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff, her sister’s granddaughter, whom she had raised. Although the donor retained a life interest, she later unilaterally executed a revocation deed in 1992 and subsequently sold the property to a third party (defendant No. 2) in 2005. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, challenging the unilateral revocation and subsequent sale as void and non-est in law.

The primary question before the Court was whether a donor could unilaterally revoke a registered gift deed through a Sub-Registrar in the absence of a specific condition in the deed regarding the donee's obligation to maintain the donor. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the registration of such a cancellation deed is legally sustainable without a decree from a Civil Court.

Absence Of Maintenance Clause Precludes Revocation Under Section 126 TP Act

The Court noted that the registered gift settlement deed (Ex.A1) was an unconditional transfer made out of love and affection. There were no recitals in the document stating that the plaintiff was obligated to look after the welfare of the donor as a condition for the gift. The bench observed that in the absence of such a specific agreement or condition, the donor cannot invoke the power of revocation based on a perceived failure of the donee to provide maintenance.

The Court emphasized that when a senior citizen parts with property out of love, a condition for maintenance is not "necessarily attached" to the gift unless explicitly stated. Since Ex.A1 was not a conditional gift deed, the Court held that the donor had no right to cancel the deed under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The bench found that no evidence was produced to show any mutual understanding or agreement that made the gift contingent upon the donor's future welfare.

"In the absence of such an agreement, Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot be relied upon when there is no right reserved or understanding entered into between the donor and the donee."

Sub-Registrar Lacks Jurisdiction To Unilaterally Cancel Registered Deeds

Regarding the role of the registering authority, the Court held that the Sub-Registrar’s power is discharged once a document is registered. The bench relied on Supreme Court precedents to clarify that the Registration Act, 1908, does not empower a Registrar to recall or cancel a registration even on grounds of fraud or irregularities. Such substantive powers of cancellation vest solely with the Civil Courts under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.

The Court highlighted that the donor had failed to issue any notice to the donee before approaching the Sub-Registrar to execute the revocation deed in 1992. It observed that the Sub-Registrar entertained the revocation deed without any legal authority, making the transaction a nullity. The bench noted that a registered gift deed cannot be cancelled contrary to the statutory protections provided under the Transfer of Property Act.

"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... is null and void and registration authority has no power to cancel the earlier registered gift settlement deed."

Unilateral Revocation Without Civil Court Decree Is Non-Est In Law

The Court further held that any attempt to revoke a gift unilaterally after a lapse of years—in this case, three years after the original deed—is "wholly void, non-est and meaningless." The bench observed that if a donor has a grievance regarding the validity of a gift, the only lawful course of action is to file a suit in a Civil Court. Bypassing the judiciary by simply executing a cancellation deed before a Registrar leads to unnecessary litigation and hardship.

Consequently, the Court found that because the original revocation was void, the donor had no right to alienate the property further. The registered sale deed executed in 2005 in favour of the second defendant was therefore deemed invalid, as the vendor had no subsisting title to transfer. The bench affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, noting that the plaintiff’s title remained intact by virtue of the original 1989 settlement.

"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... both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non-est and meaningless transactions."

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming that the unilateral revocation of the registered gift deed was legally unsustainable. It upheld the plaintiff's title and directed the appellant to deliver vacant possession of the property within three months. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Date of Decision: 06 May 2026