Registered Gift Deed Can't Be Unilaterally Revoked Before Sub-Registrar Without Approaching Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a registered gift deed, once accepted by the donee, cannot be unilaterally revoked by the donor through a revocation deed executed before the Sub-Registrar, and that such revocation deeds are void unless the gift is first set aside by a competent civil court. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 137]

In doing so, the court held that there is no presumption that property is joint family property merely because the parties constitute a Hindu joint family, and the burden lies on the person asserting it to prove otherwise.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao dismissed a first appeal challenging the dismissal of a partition suit filed by a son claiming that the suit schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties and that revocation deeds executed by his father had validly cancelled earlier gift deeds.

Explaining the legal position, the Court observed:

"Therefore, the law is very clear that when the donor executed a gift settlement deed duly registered before Sub-Register, the same is accepted by the donee, if the donor wants to cancel the said gift settlement deed, he has to approach the civil Court for cancellation, questioning the alleged fraud played by the defendant No.2 but not by way of execution of revocation deeds before the Sub-Registrar.

The law is very clear that the Sub-Registrar has no authority to entertain the revocation deeds for cancelling the registered gift settlement deed. Therefore, the registered revocation deeds said to have been executed by donor to cancel the earlier registered gift settlement deeds Ex.A-13 and Ex.A-14 are null and void and registration authority has no power to cancel the earlier registered gift settlement deeds"

As per the case facts, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition against his father and other family members, claiming that the suit schedule properties were ancestral coparcenary properties. 

The father, while agreeing to partition certain properties, alleged that his wife had fraudulently obtained two registered settlement deeds from him and claimed to have later executed registered revocation deeds to cancel them.

One of the daughters, however, contended that the suit properties were the father's self-acquired assets and that he had voluntarily executed the gift deeds in favour of his wife out of love and affection. She further asserted that the gifts had been accepted by the donee, the properties had been mutated in her mother's name, and that her mother had subsequently sold a portion of the gifted property to her.

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the properties were ancestral and that the revocation deeds were invalid, prompting the present appeal. 

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the trial court had wrongly treated the suit properties as self-acquired instead of ancestral and had erred in refusing to recognise the father's revocation deeds as valid cancellations of the earlier gift deeds.

The principal issues before the Court were whether the suit properties were ancestral or self-acquired, whether the gift deeds executed by the father were valid, and whether the unilateral revocation deeds had any legal effect.

Examining the evidence, the Court noted that the plaintiff himself admitted that several items of the suit properties had been purchased by his father from his own earnings and as his separate property. It also found that the plaintiff's own witnesses admitted that the properties were the father's self-acquired properties. Consequently, the Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the properties were ancestral.

On the validity of the revocation deeds, the Court relied on Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act and Supreme Court precedents. It held that the donor could not cancel the gift deeds by executing revocation deeds before the Sub-Registrar without first approaching a competent civil court.

The Court further held that the Sub-Registrar had no authority to register such unilateral cancellations and declared the revocation deeds "void and non-est", thereby affirming the validity of the original gift deeds.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the partition suit and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Davuluri Venkateswara Rao v. Davuluri Veeraiah (Died) & Ors.

Case No.: Appeal Suit No. 1776 of 2001

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ghanta Sridhar

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, Sri Pavan Kumar Sharma, and Sri N. Sriram Murthy

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 137