C. Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Order

WRIT PETITION N0.15033 0F 2025 The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order passed by the 3.d respondent in Case N. 6L /E/2O23 Dated 22.04.2025 served on the petitioner on 3O.O4.2O25 whereby allowing the appeal of the 4*, respondent and declaring the gift deed vide document no. 6610 of 201g dated O6.04.2018 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner as null and void as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona-l and contrary to the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 and consequently by setting aside the impugned order passed by the 3.d respondent, direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to give effective to the impugned order by interfering with a peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property mentioned in the gift deed dated 06.o4.20t8...."

2l Heard Sri C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri N.Vashishta Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 3) karned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially respondent -No.4, who is none other than the grand father of writ petitioner, has approached the Primary Authority under I 2 PK, J wp_15033_2025 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior C 1 zens Act, 2OO7, urz., Sub-Divisiona-l Magistrate and Revenue Di'isional Officer, Keesara Division, Medchal-Malkaj giri District, seel Lng cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 06.04.20|8 executed by l im (respondent No.4) in favour of the writ petitioner and also to rer torc possession of respondent No.4. After considering the ent re materia-l on record, the Primary Authority passed order da ed 20.12.2022 directing respondent No.4 to approach the Civil Cor.rt for redressal of his grievance. Aggrieved by the same, responder t No.4 has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority UIZ. Di;trict Collector Vide order dated 06.O7.2023 th.e appellate authori.' has dismissed tlre appeal vide Appeal Case No.61/E/2O23 confirning the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Primary Authoritr However, the further appeal preferred by respondent No.4 was err ertained by the Second Appellate Authority rr,2., Commissioner/Di -, ctor under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Cit.: ens Act, 2OO7 , (in short Act of 2OO7\ and the Rules made tlr reunder, even without therebeing any application for condonation < f delay. a ----7 3 PK, J wp_15033_2025

3.1) I-earned counsel has further contended that the Second Appellate Authority issued notice dated 1O.O3.2O25, which was served on the petitioner on 13.O3.2025, informing the date of hearing of the second appeal as 18.03.2025 at 2.OO pm. Though the petitioner appeared on the said date before the Second Appellate Authority, he was not allowed to be represented by his counsel. As such, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8647 of 2025 before this Court on 19.03.2025 wherein this Court vide order dated

21.03.2025 has granted stay of all further proceedings pending before the Second Appellate Authority. However, the Second Appellate Authority passed order dated 18.03.2025 with antedate in the further Second Appea-l and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Authority uiz., District Collector for fresh enqurry as per law, even without causing any enquiry or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. karned counsel has further contended that the First Appellate Authority without reference to the order of the Second Appellate Authority, has entertained the re-appeal hled a by respondent No.4 and issued the notice dated 28.03.2025 to th.e petitioner tq appear on O2.O4.2O25. On the said date, the petitioner has appeared before the First Appellate Authority and 4 PK, J wp_l5033 2025 requested to keep the proceedings in abeyanc: till disposal of W.P.No.8647 of 2025 and also submitted a repr sentation dated O2.O4.2O25 to that effect. Yet, the First Appelle r : Authority has passed the order dated 22.04.2025 behind tf e back of the petitioner duly setting aside the order of the PrimrL. y Authority and cancelled the Gift Deed dated 06.04.2018 held 5 r the petitioner and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer tc initiate further action, depriving the rights of the petitioner.

3.21 l,earned counsel for the petitioner has cor 1 :nded that the First Appellate Authority has passed the order dattt 22.04.2025 as if he heard the petitioner on 02.O4.2025. Further ,he order dated

22.04.2025 was dispatched on 29.04.2025 and served on the petitioner on 30.04.2O25. But, the copy of rl e order dated

22.04.2025 was informed to the Sub-Registrtu. concerned on

28.O4.2025 itself at the instance of the Revenue [) uisional Ofhcer and after cancellation of the Gift Deed, the copy ol he order dated

22.04.2025 was dispatched to the petitioner. The I :arned counsel has strenuously contended that the said sc:nario clearly a demonstrate-s that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are influenced by respondent No.4 and the action of respondents 2 arL, | 3 amounts to ) PK, J wp_15O33_2025 colourable exercise of power and not in accordance with the Act of 2OO7 , more particularly Section 23 thereof.

3.3) Learned counsel has further contended that the Gift Deed dated 06.04.2018 does not have any pre-condition of maintenance of respondent No.4. Further, after execution of the said Gift Deed, the writ petitioner has developed the property i.e. demolished the old building and constructed G+2 floors with his own funds and by obtaining loans worth Rs.4 crores. Learned counsel has further submitted that after the death of his wife on 16. 1I.2OO4 and son on 09.09.2017, respondent No.4 continued the joint family for sometime and thereafter in the year 2018, respondent No.4 had transferred the ownership of the subject property in favour of the petitioner and at the instructions of respondent No.4, the petitioner had also paid Rs.1O,OO,OOO/- to C.Ashok Kumar (elder son of respondent No.4 i.e. paternal uncle of the petitioner herein) towards his share of 123.5 sq. yards and got executed a Memorandum of Understanding in his (petitioner's) favour duly a signed by C.Ashok Kumar, his son and daughter. 6 PK, J wp 15033_2025

3.41 Learned counsel by placing relialce on Sud,e ;h Chhikara u. Ramti Ded vide judgment dated 06. 12.2022 lna:; contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically he1 I that the pre_ condition as contemplated under Section 23 (l) of , re Act has to be complied to set aside the gift deed. such element rf pre-condition is unavailable in the subject gift deed. Therefore , it is prayed to a,llow the writ petition by setting aside the order da :ed, 22.04.2025 passed by respondent No.3 in Case No.61/E /2023 4) Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General, while narrating the facts of the case, has contended tf at as the writ petition is hled seeking to set aside the order d; 1 passed by respondent No.3, the present writ J maintainable in respect of respondent No.2. It :d 22.04.2025 etition is not s strenuously contended that the order dated 18.O3.2025 is not rntedated and not passed on 21.O3.2025 as alleged by the petitionr: 5) On the other hand, Iearned counsel appearing or respondent No-4 has contended that originalry the father of r.r pondent No.4 had purchased the vacant land admeasuring 1,7 Sq. yards comprising in plot Nos.25 and 26 situated at Kct rapet Village, t 'l PK, J wp_15033_2025 Hyderabad East Taluq, Hyderabad, tlrrough Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.172611968 dated 15.04.1968. Thereafter, the brothers of respondent No.4 have released their share in the said plot in favour of respondent No.4 vide Release Deed bearing document No. 1187/7977 dated 29.04.1977. Further, respondent No.4 had two sons namely C. Ashok Kumar and C.R. Shiva Kumar, out of whom, C. Ashok Kumar is having one son and one daughter while C.R.Shiva Kumar had 2 sons and a daughter. While so, C.R. Shiva Kumar died on O9.O9.2O17 leaving behind him his widowed wife (respondent No.5 herein), two sons and one daughter viz., C.Srinivas (writ petitioner herein), C.Sandeep and C.Sheela and all of them."remained as members of the undivided joint family. While . so, taking advantage of advanced age of respondent No.4 and his emotiona-l dependency, the writ petitioner promised to take care of respondent No.4 and provide effective support and maintenance for the rest of life. Basing on said assurance, respondent No.4 had executed a Gift Deed in respect of the subject property in favour of I respondent No.4, AS suggested by the writ petitioner. Learned counsel ha-s -strenuously contended that when the subject property belongs to undivided joint family, the question of executing a gift 8 PK, J wp 15033 2025 deed exclusively in favour of writ petitioner do: ; not arise and respondent No.4 was made to execute such a gift r eed by adopting wrongful and deceitful practice by the writ petitio.r:r. Further, the alleged MOU executed on 02.09.2018 is at a late - point of time to execution of gift deed dated 06.04.2008 and t re same is an unregistered document. Therefore, the same cannc t be relied upon by the petitioner and the said MOU is invalid in th . eye of the law. Learned counsel has further contended that there, s no reason for respondent No.4 to exclude respondent No.S ar d other family members and exclusively choose the writ petition3- to be the sole beneficiary of the property, but for his promise tr take exclusive care of respondent No.4 and the said assurancc is the implicit condition for execution of gift deed in favour of the e rit petitioner.

5.1) Learned counsel has strenuously contendcc that the writ petitioner had approached the Sub-Registrar, LI. rpal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District on 11.05.2025 by placing a c(,1 y of the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by this Court in W.p.Nc t5033 of 2025 . and sought for suspension of revocation of gift dr:d though the said authority i.e. Sub-Registrar, Uppal, Me I :hal-Matkajgiri District is not a party to the said writ petition and .hereby played 7 9 PK, J wp_15033_2025 fraud on the said authority. The same has been confrrmed by the Sub-Registrar, Uppal, vide letter dated 18.06.2025. By drawing the attention of this Court to the object of Act No.56 of 2OO7, learned counsel has prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs for the trauma to which respondent No.4 is subjected to and also considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and suppressed the real facts. 6) In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that soonafter obtaining the copy of the order dated 07.05.2025 passed in W.P.No. I 5033 of 2025, thre petitioner has approached the Sub-Registrar, Uppal, along with a copy of the order and submitted a representation to the said authority requesting not to cancel the registered gift deed. However, respondent No.4 conveniently has removed the first page of the order. copy attached to the representation 'made by the petitioner to the Sub-Registrar and made a false statement as if the petitioner had altered the copy of a the order and the direction is given to the Sub-Registrar and the same is absolutely false. Learned counsel has further contended that only apprehending that any forcible oral instructions from the r0 PK, J wp_I5033 2025 higher authorities will have to be obliged by the St b-Registrar, the petitioner made a representation by submitting 1 te copy of this Hon'ble Court order making the Sub-Registrar, Upf al, as a party in the representation submitted by the petitioner. i :spondent No.4 made false allegations as if the petitioner had alter: I the cause title by making the Sub-Registrar, Uppal, as party t: the order and committed fraud only to prejudice this Hon'ble CorL. t and to get the writ petition dismissed, which cannot be corr rtenanced and appreciated. 7) This Court has taken note of the submi:; ions made by respective counsei and perused the material on rec I .d. 8) Before entering into the adjudication of the me tter, this Court feeis it necessary to reiterate that it is well settled rrinciple of Iaw that a beneficial legislation must receive a liberal , onstruction in consonance with the objectives of the Act-concernecl seeks to serve. 9) One of the main contentions of the petitioner- is that the gift I deed dated 06.04.2018 does not contain arry [)] e-condition of maintenance of respondent No.4. To adjudicate L.l ,on this issue, PK, J wp_15033_2025 this Court deems it apt to refer to certain judgments holding the field: a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgments 1n Urrnilo. Dixit vs. Sunil Sho,ran Dixitt has interpreted Section 23(1) of the Act to hold that express condition in the deed. mag not be required and non-maintenance of a senior citizen per se would result in invoking the implied condition for which such gift or settlement deed has been executed by the senior citizen out of love and affection, which is relatable to human conduct. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "23. The appellant has submitted before us that such an undertaking stands grossly unfulfilled, and in her petition under Section 23, it has been averred that there is a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se tJre parties. In such a situation, the two conditions mentioned in Sudesh Chikkara v. Ramti Devi l(2O241 14 SCC 2251 must be appropriately interpreted to further the benehcial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislature. Therefore, the Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below had rightly held the gift deed to be cancelled and since the conditions for the well-being of the senior citizens were not complied with. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench, because it takes a strict view of the beneiicial legislation.

24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must clari$/ the observations made vide the impugred order qua the competenry of the a | (20251 2 SCC 747 t2 PK, J wp_15033_2025 Tribuna-l to hard over possession of the property. I Commr. [(2021) 15 SCC 730], this Court observed tha. the Act may order eviction if it is necessar5r and exped e protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it calnot Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jr- Section 23, cannot order possession to be transfen r defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.' r S. Vanitha v. lribunals under 1t to ensure the ,e said that the isdiction under l. This would provide speedy, b) In the case of Ro,dha,mo,ni and. others a. Sit ate of l{eralaz, the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Cour'l has considered Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In 1 aragraph No.1 I of the judgment, it is observed that 'Section .2 ) of the Senior Citi-z,ens Act, 2007, does not contemplate that the :ondition should form part as recital in the deed of transkr. It onl.g .efers that there should be a condition for such transfer. This condit )n can be either express or implied. If there is no express recital n the deed, the Tibunal has to look around- circumstances to /i Ld out whether conduct othenise dispel the intention of donor c reuoke. The consideration for executing a gifi deed or settleme"l' deed is based on human conduct, caring and conscientious. Tran:;_ br admittedlg is a out of loue and affection. Any donor in a gifi deed tt tuld expect in a natural course of human conduct that donee continl es to behaue in 2 2Ol5 SCC Online Ker 33530 13 PK, J wp 15033_2025 same manner as behaued before execution of the deed. The loue and affection inJluenced for execution of the deed certainly must be enduring and tuithout ang banrter." It is further stated that, ".... It is to be noted that the special scheme in terms of Senior Citizens Act, 2OOT could declare certain transfer as void, taking note of the fact that by taking advantage of the emotionally dependent senior citizens, relatives grab the property on the pretext of providing emotional support. Therefore, legislature thought such transaction could be declared as void as the conduct leading to transaction was based on malice or fraud. Therefore, condition referred in Section 23 has to be understood based on the conduct of the transferee and not with reference to the specific stipulation in the deed of transfer. Thus, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary that there should be a speciJic recital or stipulation as c condition in the transJer o.f deed iasell This condition mentioned in SeCtion 23 is only' referable as a conduct of the tralsferee, prior to and after execution of the deed of transfer. Thus, challenge based on the ground that there is no reference in the recital of deed that transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor is of no consequence- (emphasis added) c) The said ratio has also been approved by the Division I Benches of High Court of Kerala in Subftashini o. Distrtct t4 PK, J wp_15033_2025 Collectors as well as High Court of Judicatur : at Madras in S.Subrannanian u. The District Collector, (1 ,in5o*r. ,* ', Appeal No. 195 of2025 & batch dated 06.03.20251 10) In view of the above settled proposition of la''t this Court is of the view that mere non-mentioning of a condition i. L the gift deed to maintain the executor does not absolve the petitioner from performing his duty to maintain the respondent I o.4 to keep the gift deed in force. Therefore, the plea urged by he petitioner in this regard cannot be sustained and is hereby rejec -ed. 1 1) Insofar as the judgment relied upon by I re petitioner in Sudesft Chikkara's case (referred. supra) is cor :erned, there is no complaint by the executor of the Gift Deed of .r >n-maintenance whereas in the present case it is the specif c grievance of respondent No.4 i.e. executor of the Gift Deed thz.1 he is not being maintained properly by the petitioner.. As suc h , the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable tn facts of the present case arld is of no avail to him. a 3 2020 SCC Online Ker 4080 7 15 PK, J wp 15033_2025 l2l Insofar as the contention of the petitioner as regards not providing opportunity ofhearing is concerned, as gathered from the material on record, after remanding of the matter by respondent No.2, respondent No.3 sent notices to the parties i.e. petitioner as well as unofhcial respondent No.4 herein and the matter was posted for hearing onO2.O4.2O25. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. Further, in his representation dated 02.O4.2025 submitted to respondent No.3, the petitioner himself has admitted that he received notice through whatsapp on 28.03.2025 at L-45 pm to appear on O2.O4.2025 at 11-30 am at the ofhce of respondent No.3 and the petitioner also requested respondent No.3 to stay all further proceedings in the matter till disposal of W.P.No.|O24S of 2025. Similarly, representation dated 08.O4.2025 also the petitioner had requested respondent No.3 for deferment of proceedings till 02.05.2025 on which date W.P.No. 10245 of 2025 was adjourned to, which itself disproves the contention of the petitioner that he was not provided a opportunity of hearing to defend his case. It is also pertinent to note that by frling representations before the authorities as well as writ petitions before this Court, one after another, the petitioner is 16 PK, J wp_15033_2025 not allowing the proceedings to come to a logical r nd and thereby dragging the matter on one pretext or the other. F -rrther, it seems that the authorities were weighed by the fact that espondent No.4 is a supersenior citizen and therefore taken up tht matter on day- to-day basis, which cannot be faulted with ,hat too when reasonable opportunity of hearing was proviclr d to the writ petitioner. Hence, the contention of the petitionel n this regard is also not in mere acceptance of this Court. 13) Be that as it may. It is specifically urged by espondent No.4 that by misleading the Sub-Registrar, Medcha-l, th : writ petitioner got revoked the gift deed dated 06.O4.2018. 14) A perusal of the letter of the Sub-Registrr., Uppal, dated

74.06.2025 makes it crystal clear that the wr.1 petitioner has submitted an edited version of order of thi; Court dated O7.O5.2O25 and misled the said authority. In the said letter, the said authority has clarified that any action, remarir or endorsement made based on such falsified document submi_.ed by the writ a petitioner was done without full knowledge of I I uth and under t7 PK, J wp_15033_2025 misrepresentation and that appropriate legal recourse wilt be pursued as required. 15) Though the learned counsel for the writ petitioner tried to project before this Court that mere change in the array of parties in the cause title does not amount to alteration in the order, this Court is unable to appreciate and accept the same for the simple reason that the even the hrst page containing the details such as date of order, writ petition number, array of parties, prayer, etc. also forms part and parcel ofthe order copy. 16) In this backdrop, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of contention/ submission of the writ petition in his reply: "16. ...... I humbly submit that for various reasons, on and off parties are making representations to the Sub-Ordinate Ollicials even though they are not party to the Writ Petition or Order, since apprehending alty forcible oral instructions from the higher authorities will have to be obliged by the Sub-Ordinate guthority and just because, in that context when I made a representation by submitting the copy of High Court Order making the Sub-Registrar, Uppal as party in the representation only, by removing the first page of the order copy of the Honble High Court ....." 17) Thus, the writ petitioner himself has clearly admitted that he made representation to the Sub-Registrar, Uppal, by removing the , I / l8 PK, J wp_15033_2025 first page of the order of this Court, but, however, c rntends that he has not tampered the order of this Court. As s1. ted supra, first page of the order also forms part and parcel of tlr, Q1ds1 and the act committed by the petitioner certainly amounts o playing fraud and misleading the authorities, which has to I r, criticized and reprimanded. 18) Further, as regards the contention of the pe :itioner that he paid substantial amounts to develop the property I td construction of a building in the subject land by obtaining l,,ans, the same cannot be looked into by this Court as it raises a cii;puted question of fact and the remedy of the petitioner is somewhr r : else. 19) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Courl t rds no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismisr ed 20) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in ri is writ petition shall stand closed. No costs. ,TRUE COPY// - SD/.S. IU ALLIKARJUNA RAO +F:; SrANT REG|S+RAR" (\ ', \i , . SECTIONOFFICER , - \ To One fair copy to the HON'BLE SRt JUSTICE {pr_l_ r KARTHTK (For Her Lordship's Kind Perusal)

1. 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Affairs, New Delhi. ustice and Company

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Buildings, Hyderabad -ibrary, High Court

4. One CC to SRI C HARI PREETH Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to SRI MOHAMIVED ItvlRAN KHAN, ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. One CC to SRI N VASHISHTA VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies DAN / \ o HIGH COURT \ DATED:1 810912025 I a ORDER WP.No.15033 of 2025 L) t h 1r- i ;r( c 0 I , i0;rii '.n t Oc.. r r( rr1 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ 1