HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.240 of 2007 Between S.Chandra Mohan and others ..Appellants AND The Sub Registrar, Singarayakonda and another ..Respondents :: JUDGMENT :: Counsel for the appellant Sri V.Rajagopal Reddy Counsel for respondents Government Pleader for Revenue 20.3.2007 Per G.S.Singhvi, C.J. This appeal is directed against order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing revocation deed dated 17.1.2007, by giving them liberty to avail other remedies in accordance with law. The appellants are the sons of respondent No.2, who executed deed of settlement dated 27.12.2001 in their favour. After six years, respondent No.2 executed revocation deed dated 17.1.2007 and got the same registered. The appellants challenged the registration of the revocation deed in Writ Petition No.2100 of 2007. They pleaded that the deed of settlement could not have been revoked by respondent No.2 and, in any case, the same ought not to have been registered without giving them notice and opportunity of hearing. The learned Single Judge referred to the judgment of the Full Bench in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma[1] and disposed of the writ petition by observing that the only remedy available to the writ petitioners is to file civil suit for cancellation of the deed of revocation. We have heard Sri V. Rajagopala Reddy. In our opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed because the order under challenge is entirely based on the judgment of the Full Bench in Yanala Malleshwari v. Ananthula Sayamma (supra) and we do not see any reason to ignore the judgment of the larger bench. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.450 of 2007 filed by the appellants for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20.3.2007. psr [1] 2006 (6) ALD 623