'1 . Mendu Narsimha Reddy v. '1. State 9f Teiangana

5. Mendu Mahipal Rqddy, S/o Narsimha Reddy, Aged 43 ygars, Ocp. Businees, R/o Basanthapur village, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuva0agiri Qigtrict- 508105. 6 Smt.M,Madhavi, Wo Ramachandra Reddy, D/o Mendu Narsimha Reddy, Aged 40 years, Oc-e. Housewife, R/o Athapur, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad- 500048

7. Smt. Pinnapureddy Surekha, Wo Pinnapureddy Mallikarjun. D/o Mendu Narsimha Reddy,-Aged 37 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.9-1-1161201518, Boad No.2, Anjini Nagar., Boduppal, Mgdipally MaQdal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dlstricl500039 B. Smt.Mendu Saritha, Wo Mahipal Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ Agriculture, [/o H.No. 1 -28, BasBnthapur village, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District-508105 9 Smt.Mendu l=akshmi @ Lakshmi Prasanna, Wo Prabhakar Reddy, Aged 52 ygars, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-27, Basanthapur village, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District-S081 05 'l 0. The Sub-Registrai, Bhongir, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Districl5O81 16. Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumsiances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ...RESPONDENTS pleased to issue a u/rit, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records and quash the Orders, dated nil-06-2019 passed in Case No G/190/2018 by the Respondent No.3-RDO/Tribunal under Senior Citizens Act, which were modified in Appeal Case No.C/164312019 by order dated 06- 09-2019 passed by the Respondent No.2-District -trrbunal and the consequential Memo styled as Notice collector/Appellate No.C/1643/2019, dated 09-02-2023, in so far as not granting the relief as claimed by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Qitizelp Act, 2007 and violalive of Articles 14,21 anfl 300-,4 of the Cpnstituliqn of lndia and violative of principles of natural justice ancl consequently allow the Casg No.9/1 9Q12018 On the file of the Respondent No.3- RDO/Tribundl under Senior Citizens Act. lA NO:'l oF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tha! in thg circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Cou( may be pleased to dispenEe with the filins o{ the pertified copies of Order, dated nil-OQ:?o19 pa€Fed in Case No.G/190/20'18 by thq Respondeni Ng.3-RDO and also the order date-d 06-09-2019 passed n Appeal Case No.C/l64312019 by the Respondent N92- District Collector. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Seqtion 151 CPQ praying thatin thg circumstances stated in the affidavit{iled in support of the petition, thd High Coqfimay be pleased to direct the Re'spondent No 10 not to register any documenl il rerFIlgc] of the lands bearing'Sy.Nq.27lA4, admeasurin$ Ac.0-3.7 guntas, Sy.No.28/AA Bdmeasqrirlg Ac.0-36 guntas, Sy No 30 admeasuring AC. l:28 guntas, Sy.No 35 qdmeasuring Ac.2-09 guntas. Sy.No 36/44 admeasuring Ac.1-21 guntas total admeasuring Ac7-11 guntas situated at Basanthapur Bevenue Village, Raiapet Mandal, Yadad ri-Bhuva nag irr Drstrict (Erstwhile Nalgonda District), pending disposal of the writ petition. gounsef foq the Petitioners: SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA Couns6l for tlre Respondent Nos.1 TO 3 & 10: GP FOR BEVENUE Counse! for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 9: -': The Caurt made the following: ORDER ) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1473A oF 2023 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:- '...to issue a Wit, Order or direction npre porttanlarlg one in the nature of 'Wit of Certiorqi' call for the re<nrds and quqsh th.e Orders, dated nil'06' 2019 passed in Cdse No.G/19O/2o18 bA the Respondent No.3' RDO/ Trtbunal under Senior Citizens Act, whbh were modtfted in Appeat Co-se No.C/1643/2O19 bg order dated 06.09.2019 passed bg the Respondent No.2-Distict Collector/ Appellate Tribunal and the consequential Memo stgted as Notice No.C/ 1643/2019, doted" O9.O2.2023, in so far as not gronting the retief as claimed bg the petittoners, as illegal, arbitrqrg, contrary to the provisiotts of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and uiotatiue of pinctples of natural justtce and consequentlg atlow the Cose No.G/ 190,/2OlB on the rtle of the Respondent N1.3-RDO/ Tibunal under Senior Citizens Act and pass such oth.er ord.er or orders as lhis Hon'ble Court maA d"eem frt and proper in the ' cira nLstances of the ca-se" .

2. It is stated that the petitioners herein are the senior citizens and parents of respondent Nos.4 to 9. It is further stated that the petitioners made a complaint under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents ald Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7 (for short "the Act") before respondent No.3 i.e., the Revenue Divisiona,l Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Tribunal alleging that respondents No.4 to 9 i.e., children of the petitioners failed to maintain them by providing basic necessities and also not attending any medical emergencies. It is further stated that respondent No.3, after conducting enquiry and after hearing the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 to 9, has passed an order vide proceedings No.G/ 190/2018, dated Ni1.O6.2O19 granting 2 CVBR, J w_t4738-023 ,; ce of Rs.10,OO0/- to the petitioners besides the medica-l for an amount of Rs.2,0O,O00/-. Aggrieved by the said ordeI D, the petitioners filed an appeal on the file of respondent No.2, who in turn, in order to resolve tt.e inter se disputes between the parties, has granted lumpsum amount of Rs.15,0O,O00/- each, totaling Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioners, vide order dated

06.09.2019 in Proceedings No.C/ 1643/2019. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners frled this writ petition.

3. Considerecl the submissions of the leamed counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Despite service of notice on respondent Nos.4 to 9, ttrere is no representation nor any counter affidavit is filed on I their behalf.

4. Sri Peddakula Papaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that as per Section 23 of the Act, after commencement of the Act, if any property stands in the name of the senior citizens is transferred by way of a gift or otherwise and when the children/transferees fail to provide basic amenities to the transferor, the transferred property under the gift shall be dcemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence upon the tralsferor and shall at the option of the transferor be J CVBR, J w_14738_2023 declared void by the Tribunal; and since, in the present case, taking advantage of the execution of gift deeds in favour of respondent Nos.4 alrd 5, they neglected to maintain the petitioners and not being satislied with the relief granted by the Special Tribunal and Appellate Authority, the petitioners prayed to cancel the gift deed executed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

5. This Court has carefully examined the gift deeds executed by the petitioners in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. There is no condition in the gift deeds that the transferee f donee shall provide basic needs to the transferor/donor and failure to provide such necessities by the transferee/donee the transfer of property made in favour ofthe donee shall be deemed to be declared to be fraud or coercion and liable for cancellation. The Senior Citizens Act was enacted with a laudable object for providing maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and parents taking into consideration the modern trends in the joint family system and a large number of elderly people are not being looked after by their family members in providing financial assistance and attending medical emergencies. This legislation empowers the Senior Citizens to cancel the gift deeds executed by them in favour of their children/near relatives and declare such transactions as void. 4 CVBR, J w_t4738 2023

6. It is apt to refer Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, which reads as follou s: "23. Transfer of propertg to be uoid in certain circwmstances.-(1) Where ang .senior citi-z,en who, ofrer tle commencement of this Act, htts transferred bg tuay of @ft or otherwise, his property, subiect to the condition that the transferee shall prouide the basic amerdties and basic phAsical needs to th.e trarsferor dnd such tran'sferee refuses or fails to prouide such amenities and physical needs, the said. transfer of propertg shall be deemed to haue been made by frattd or coercion or under undue influence and sLvr,ll at the option of tle trarLsferor be declared uoid bg the Tibunal. (2) Wlere ang senior citizen has a right to receiue mdintenance out of an estate and such estate or part tlereof is transferred, the ight to receiue maintenarrce maA be enforced. against the transferee if the transferee hrrs notice of ttrc ight, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not agoinst the tra nsferee for ansideration and wittaut notice of igw. (3) If, ang senior citizen is incopable of enforcing the rights unrTer sub- sections (1) and (2), action maA be taken on his belnlf bg anA of tlte organisatiort refened to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.

7. A careful perusal of above provision makes it clear that for invoking Section 23, tL,.e following pre-requisites have to be fulfilled i.e, 1) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and 2) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. If both the afcresaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at th e instance of the transfcror and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void. , t-' {ji* 5 CVBR, J w_14738_2023

8. A reading of the recitals in the gift deeds executed by the petitioners would clinchingly establish that no conditions whatsoever attached to the Transfer of property have been mentioned. The issues raised in this writ petition are no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hontrle Supreme Court in Sadesh Chhikara us. Ramti Detti and anotherl, wherein it was observed as under:

13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her propertg bA exeo)ting a gifi or a release or otherutise in fauour of his or lpr near and. dear ones, a condition of looking afier th.e senior citizen is not necessailg attached to it. On the controry, uery ofie\ such transfers are mad.e ouj of loue and affectton uitltout ang expectation in retum. Therefore, uthen it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a tran-sfer, existence of such condittons must be established before the Tibunal.

9. Be that as it may, admittedly, in this case as per the {indings recorded by the Appellate Authority, the transferees i.e., the children of the senior citizens have disposed of the property acquired through gift deed executed by the petitioners. Therefore, at this length of time, if the gift deed executed by the petitioners is declared as void, it would amount to disturbing the settled position and interest created in favour of the third parties. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the property gifted to ' izozz; rz scr rzo i l l I I l I I , 6 CVBR, J w_14738 2023 I respondent Nos.4 and 5 is to an extent of Acs'7'11 gts'' and the present prevailing market value is approximately 3 Crores worth'

10. In view of the above and since respondent Nos'4 to 9' despite service of notice, did not choose to file any counter affrdavit opposing the claim made by the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the lump sum amount ganted by the Appellate Authority i'e', respondent No'2 herein is further enhanced to Rs.25,00,000/- each to the petitioners payable by respondent Nos.4 and 5, rvho in turn shall deposit the enhanced amount in three (3) equal installments, in addition to the amount already deposited as ordered by thc Appellate Authority' within a period of six months from todaY'

11. With the above directicns, the writ petition is disposed of' No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petitron shall stand closed. SD/.M NT OHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To . Principal Sec.retary Department Revenue, Secretariat Buildings' Saifabad' 1 Hvdeiabad, litate of Telanqana rilIBti,.i"t ij"'irl1i"r_*r_Trppilate Authority, Under werfare of Parents and s."nio'itiiiruni nct, Yaaao ril6huvanagiri District at Bhon g ir' ffi 'R";;;; bi"i.'io"ir orii;;-;fi:sl6 bivisionar Tribu-nal, Under welfare ;iFaiIn[ ;;io sunlor cit"ijni eE ehins:r Divisioil, Yadadri-Qhuvanasiri District. . ih";' 5rO n"gistrar Bhongir, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri DlStrict-5.081 1 6' PAPAIAFfPEDDAKULA, Advocate [oPUcl o"i, bC t" iil; dd.i"-oi ron nrveirlE, Fi,sh a;'n ior the! state br relansana' at Hyderabad IOUT] -shl . Two QD Copies 2 3 4 5 b 7 PSK. I HIGH COURT DATED:2110112025 I \ t ORDER WP.No.14738 of 2023 'i ;, E sra t,-j 24 tlAR 2025 * SFi... .1.' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ I eLl lb\