1. Vadla Shankaraiah v. 1. The Union of lndia

Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Orders passed in Case No.C/3360/2018, dated 1710812019 on the fite of the 4th Respondent and has confirmed in Appeal No.1/43/2020, dated 0410912020 on the fite of the respondent and quash the same and consequently allow the Case No.Ci 3360/201g filed by the petitioner. lA NO: 2 OF 2O2O . Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.5 and 6 not to alienate or create any third party interest over the premises bearing No. 4-8-61l0lGl9, Kurbinisetty Colony, Mahabubnagar and land admeasuring Ac.1.08 guntas Sy.No.g7, Lalkot Villag'e, China Chinthakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District pending disposal of the main Writ petition. lA NO: I OF 2021 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.S and 6 not to alienate or create any third party interest over the premises bearing No.4-8-61 101G18, Kurbinisetty Colony, Mahabubnagar and Iand admeasuring Ac.'1.08 guntas in Sy.No.97, Larkot Village, china chinthakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, land to an extent of Ac.1-07 gts. in Sy.No.19/A and Ac.1-08 gts. in Sy.No.19/E, total admeasuring Ac.2.15 gts., situated at Lingalchedu Village, Serivantapur Gram panchayat, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and land in sy.No.9g/A extent Ac.2-00 gts., situated at Lalkota Village, Chinnachinthakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. lA NO: 2 oF 2021 Between:

1. Vadla Lavanya, W/o Uppari Shankaraiah. Aoed Housewife, H.No.4-8-62lO/G/8. Kunhinishetti/ Shivalayam, Bandla Geri, Mahabubnagar District' 2 Uppan Shankaraiah, S/o. Uppari Ramulu. Aoed Business, Rl/o. H.No. 4-A-62iOlGl8, Kunhinis'6ettv Shivalayam, Bandta Geri, Mahabubna6ar DiJtriii --- Colony, 33 years, Occ. Opp: Pedda about 43 Colony, years, Occ. Opp Pedda l I I I I PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.S & 6 AND

1. Vadla Shankaraiah, S/o. Vadla Venkatanna, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. Lalkota Village, Chinnachintakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. Yadla Buchamma, W/o. Vadla Shankaraiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Lalkota Village, Chinnachintakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS No.1 & 2MRIT PETITIONERS '3. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi.

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department for Women, Children Disabled and Senior Citizens, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

5. The Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and'Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, and District Collector, Mahabubnagar, Rep. by District Collector.

6. The Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, And the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar ...RESPONDENTS/RESPON DENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacatethe tnterim OrderPassed in l.A. No.2 ot2O2O inWP. No. 18555of 2020, granted on 06.1 1.2020. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH. RAVINDER Counset for the Respondent No.1: ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counselfor the Respondent No.2 to 4: AGP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: Ms. NANDINI UPADYA The Court made the following: ORDER \ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.18555 of 2O2O ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Orclers in case No.C/3360/2018, dated 17.O8.2019, passed by respondent No.4, which was confirmed by respondent No.3 in appeal No. 1 /A3l 2O2O, dated O4.O9.2O2O.

2. Heard Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned Counsel for petitioners, Ms.Nandini Upadya, learned Counsel for responden[ Nos.S and 6 and learned Assistant Government pleader lor Women Development and Child Welfare.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are Lhat petitioners are wife and husband and owners of the land admeasuring Acs.2-15 gts in sy.Nos.Lg/.AA and lglF,, situated at Lalkota village of chinna chinthakuntzrl Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, having acquired the sarrle under registered sale deed No.149o of 2008. They have als,r pulshased the lands admeasuring 52 Sq.yrds and Ac.l-0g gts in Sy.Nos.757 and Lg /A, situated at Lingalched village of Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under registered sale deed Nos.S L74 of 2oo4 and l4go of 200g, respectively. 2 Respondent No-S is the daughter and respondent No.6 is the son-in-raw of petitioners; that petitioners executed gift deed No'3905 0f 2015, dated 13.o7.2075, in flavour of respondent No.S in respect of land admeasuring Ac.l _ 0g gts in Sy.No.97, . situated at Lingalched Village of Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and executed another gift deed No.3g06 of 2015, dated 73.07.2015 in favour of respondent No.S in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2 _ 0O gts in Sy.No.9g/A, situated at Lalkota V,lage, chinna chinthakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, and also executed gift deed No.7477 0f 2015' dated 23'o6'20L5, in favour of respondent No.5, in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2 - 15 gts in sy.Nos .rg/A and 19/E' situated at Lingalched village of Koilkonda Mandal, on the hope that respondent Nos.S and 6 would look after them. However' subsequent to execution of gift deeds, respondent Nos'S and 6 have neglected the petitioners and are not taking care of them. 4' It is further averred that petitioners have become old and unable to maintain themselves. Respondent Nos.S and 6 are not even providing basic amenities and specific needs and it crearry shows that respondent Nos.S and 6 played fraud and got gift deeds executed in their favour on farse promises; that - - , :::-=!?jxED'!€=-- 3 petitioners filed an application before respondent No.4 uide case No.C/336O12O18, under Section 5 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2OO7, (for short 'the ActJ for cancellation of registered gift deed Nos.3805, 3806 and 7471of 2015. However, the primary authorig uide Order dated L7.O8.2O 19, dismissed the application principally on the ground that petitioner No.l was aged about 57 years ancl petitioner No.2 was aged about 48 years, therefore, they are not senior citizens and thus, the application is not maintainablr:. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 uide appeal No.I|A3/2O2O, and the appellate authority uide impugned Order dated 04.O9.2O2O, disrnissed the application on the same ground, on which the primary authority dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, present Writ Petition is filed.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that as per Section s(i)(a) of the Act, an application for maintenance under Section 4 can be made by a senior citizen or a parent. As per Section 2(d) of the Act, 'parent'means father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step father or step mother, as the case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is a senior ciLizen. In view of language employed in the Act, aot only the 4 senior citizens, but also parents, are entitled to file application for maintenance under the said Act, therefore, the orders passed by the primary authority as well as the appellate authority are contrary to the scheme of the Act and are unsustainable and therefore, liable to be set aside. 6' Learned counser for respondent Nos.s and 6 wourd submit that gift deeds are unconditional and no condition has been incorporated that the same are executed subject to condition of maintenance of parents; that the application fired by the petitioners for cancellation of gift deeds is not maintainable and thus, the primary authority and the appellate authorit5r have rightly dismissed the application. She further submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be set aside. 7' Perusal of the impugned order dated L\.og.2otg of primary authorit5r and the order dated 04.og.2o2o of appellate authorit5r shows that the apprication filed by the petitioners was dismissed solely on the ground that petitioners are not senior citizens and therefore, they are not entitled to fire application under the Act without going into the merits of the case. 5

8. It is appropriate to refer to Section 5(1) of the Act, which reads as under:- "An application for maintenance under Section 4, may be made - a) BA a senior citizen or a parent, as the case maA be; or b) If he is incapable, bg ang other person or crganization authorized by him; c) The Tribunal may talce congizance r.to mottt."

9. It is also appropriate to refer to the delinition of parents as per Section 2(d) of the Act, which reads as under:- "'parent' means fatlrcr or mother whether biological, adoptiue or step father or step mother, as the cai.se maA be, uhether or not tlrc fatlrcr or the mother is o senior citizen."

10. Further, Section 4 of the Act mandates that a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself on his own earnings, can file an application under Sect.ion 5 of the Act, for maintenance. A combined reading of Section 4 and 5 of the Act, mandates that senior citizen er a parent can file an application for maintenance before the concerned eruthority for maintenance. In the case on hand, petitioners ar:e biological parents of respondent Nos.S and 6 and thus, they are entitled to file an application for maintenance. The primary reason on which the application filed by the petitioners was rejected, is contrary to the Act, and therefore, the same is unsustainable. \ \ 6 1 1. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the Order 17.08.2019, passed by the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority uid.e order dated o4.o9.2020, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the primary authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2oor. However, the primary authorit5r shall consider the application fited by the petitioners on its own merits by duly giving notice to petitioners as well as respondent Nos.S and 6 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the Act, 2oo7, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

12. This court uide order dated 06.11.2o2o, passed interim orders directing the respondent Nos.S and 6 not to alienate the subject propert5r. The interim order dated 06.11 .2o2o, passed by this court shall be in force till the disposal of the application of the petitioners by the primary authority. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if .fly, shall stand closed Sd/-P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRARr SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To

1. The secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of lndia, New Delhi' 2. The Principal secretary, Department for women, children Disabled and Senior Citizens, State of Telangana,-Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad'

3. The District Collector, Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, and District Collector, Mahabubnagar.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior citizen Act. 2007, Mahabubnagar District, / Mahabubnagar /

5. One CC to SRI CH. RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Assistant Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Women Development & Child Welfare, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. One CC to Ms. NANDINI UPADYA, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies MP PMK \ck e I HIGH COURT DATED:281101202s THE S )..t ( 1 o fa iloy (\ a. + J\ triTCr E ,1 * ORDER WP.No.18555 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ t Q,Pdtu