The High Court · 2025

[ruildrrr including the tems. '[hc said transa.tion took placc liom .10 l6 to 202 I . r i. l-lrc pttitioners never transferrcd the alnount liaudulentlr as alle'ged bv I" respondent. 1 vii. Shc has frled the albrcsaid application befbre the 2n'r respondent at the instance cll'her daughters w,ith a nralalidc ir-rlention. i,iii.She has translerred ccrtain properties in the nanre of her daugl-rters and the dctails of the same are tnentioned in paragraph No. l8 of thc counter

6. With the said submissions, the petitioncrs sou-uht dismiss the said application filed by l " respondcnt befbre the 2"d respondent.

7. Vide impugned order dated 17.05.2025, in Case No. D1234/2025, 2nd respondent allowed the said application. with the fbllowing directions:- a) Concemed Registrars and Sub Registrars arc dirccted to cancel the aloresaid registered gili settlcurcnt de.'ds rnentioned in schedule 'A' and 'B' propertics by declaring that those properties acquired by the l'' rcspondent through her husband and she is the absolute crrvner olthe said properties, 8 b) 'fo transfi'r'all the developed property sharr.rs acquired b_v-' the pelilioners to the narne of the 1'' respondcnt in the rnanner that no third palty rights are alfected. c ) l-hc pr-titioners herein are directed to transler ar1 arrount ol- Rs. i .61.i5,600/- to the account of l'' respondent witl.rin thirtv r-i0tdars. lailing which, the 1'1 respondcrrt shzrll take steps tc'r initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners hcrcin- d) In case. the petitioners herein indulges in any crirrinal activiti.'s sith the l" respondent, necessary action would be take rr agailrst thor. ti. Challcnging the said ordcr, thc petitioners llled thc prcsent rr rit petitiorr corrte nding as f,ollor.,,,s:- -l hc l"'r respondent exceeded his jurisdictiorr and declared that the l'' respondent acquired the said properties through hcr late l-rusband and she is the absolute ou rlcr ol the saicl propclllcs etc. Il. llrt: inrpugned order lacks twin conditiorrs as laid dou'n uncfu-r Scction 2]( I ) ol the Act, 2007. 9 -l'hcre llt. is abnormal delay in approaching 2^d respondent by the 1'r respondent. l\'. l'here is no consideration of the contentions iaised b1, the petitioners before the 2nd respondent by the ?"'r respondent in the impugned order. The impugned order is in vlolation of principles of natural .justice and also in violation ol' thc procedure laid clo*n under the Act, 2007. Therefbrc, though thcrc is an alternative remedy ol'appeal and the inrpr.rgned ordel is ar.r appealable orde r in tcrnrs ol' Section 16 ( I ) ol' the .\ct. 2007, the present writ petition is rnaintainable.

9. I '' respondent filed counter contending as tblloivs:- 1'he present writ petition is not maintainable sincc the irnpugned order is an appealable order in tenns ol Section 16( I ) of the Act. Instead ol pref-erring an appeal, the- petitioners hled the present writ petition. u. C)n consideration of the entire documents only, 2"d respondc'nt passed the impugned order. 10 l'' petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent in person and adrnitted the'claim rlade by ['' respondent. t\ 'l h.' .\ct. 1007 is a beneficial legislation. Applying strict construction ot'larrguage in Section 23 is not necessary. On consideration ol the said aspects only, 2"drespondent has allowed rhe apptication tlled by the l'' respondent and ordu-red tbr cancellation of the aforesaid registered gift settlernents deeds etc. \ t. l'hcre is no enor in it.

10. ['ith thc atbresaid contentions, the l" rcspondent souglit to disrniss the rvrit petition. I l. In support ol- their contentions, the petitioners placed rcliance on thc irrincil-rle laid dou,n by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudcsh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devir. Justice P.l). Dinakaran vs. tlon'ble.lutlgcs lnqrriry Clommittee antl Ors2, lllachi Devi (D) br l,.Rs. vs. ,Iain Societ-v, Protection of Orphans lndiar, K.Lokesh V llangalore f)ist. Maintenancc and Welfare of parcnts and Scnior 2022 l11l SCR a76 'ara zolt lsc; lztt 'nrn zoo: sc;:sz 11 Clitizen Appellate RDO{, Gujrat Agro Industries company Limitetl 1s The Municipal corporation of the city of Ahmctlabad:, S. Vanitha vs. Dcputy- Commissioner, Bengaluru f lrhan6. t tigh courr of Kamataka in C. Arasoji ll.ao Vs The Bangalore Dist. Maintenance', Sri Jayashankar vs. thc Asst. Commissioner, North Taluk and Ors8, Fligh Court ol- Kerala in Seemol fa) Sintlhu vs. The Union of lndiae ancl the Madras Iligh C'ourt in Maheshwaran M. Vs The District Collectorr(r, the 'Ielangana tligh Court in P. Rohit Saurya v. State of Telanganarl anci H. Deepika vs Appellate Tribunalr2. ll. On thc other hand, l't respondent relicd on the principle laid doi,vn b1. thc Bombay High Courl in Ashwin Bharat Khater v. lirvashi Bharti Khater'3, Madras High Court in Easwaramoorthy C.P. r'. C. Paranthamanr{, Palanimuthu v. I'he Principal 12025 (1)CurCC 15 'arR tggg sc rsta o 1zozt1 ts scc z:o 72025 Supreme (online)(KAR) 338 'zoz+ sueRrue IxARNATAKA) 677 e2024 Supreme lonline)(kerala)7433 '02024 Supreme (online) (MAD) 30159 t'2025 srpl."-e (online)(Tel) 4796 rr2o2o (supreme)( I'el) 69 ' ' 2023 scc ontine Bom 1921 " 2025 SCC ontine t\,4ad l) Officcr, I{DO Namakkalrs. S. Subramanian !'. District Collectorr(' l.a.iinder Singh Bakshi v. Daljit Kaur'', the Madras High Courr in S.Mala vs. District Arbitratorr8, li. l-eamed Asst.Govt.Pleader lor Women Development and Child Wetlare also supports thc order passed by the 2nr respondent. l-1. Roth Sri Nianu. lcarned counsel tbr the petitioners and Sri AviniLsh [)csai. learnctl senior counsel, appearing lbr petitioncrs and l " resporrdcnt re'spectivc'11' nradc the-ir submissions extensively and also placcd rcliancc on the principlc laid down bv the Apex (iourt, this Court and other lligh (iourts. the same witl be discussed and considererl irr the bc-lor. rrcntioncd paragraphs.

15. In thc lieht ot'thc said subrnissions, it is relevant to note that Section l --l ol- the Act, 2007 deais transler of propertv to be "vith void in ccrtain c irc u nrsttrnce-s and thc sarle is extracted belorv:- ll. l-rrnsfer of property to be voitl in certain circ u nrs ta n ces. " 202a scc onl,n" Mad 8409 'u wA No. 195 of 2025 " wp ruo. to8sa of 2023 Det Hc " (zozs) sc"c ditine Mad 1764 13 l. Whorc anl scnior citizen who. aficr the commencerncnt ol this Act. has b-v rvar, ol gift or othenvise. his propcrtl,. suhjcct to the condition that the transleree shall provide the basic anrc-nitics and hasic physical nceds to thc transf-cror and such transl-erec reluses or fails to provide such arncrritics and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall he dccnrcd to have bcen made by lraud or coercion or undcr undue influcnce and shall at the option of the transfl'ror bc declarcd void bv the Tribunal. l. Whcre anl scnior citizcn has a right to recr:ir e lnainlenance oul of art cstate and such cstate or part. thereof' is transIerrcd. thc right to receivc maintenancc may bc enlirrccd against the transferee if the translerce lras noticc ol thc right. or il'thc lransler is gratuitous; but not against thc transttrce lirr considcration and without noticc of right. -3. Il'anl scnior citizcn is incapable of enlorcin-q the rights under suh-sections (l) and (2). action may bc taken on his bchall'h1 arrr of the organization referred to in [:xplanation to suh-section ( | ) ol scction 5.

16. Section 4 ol' thc Act, 2007 is also relevant and it is L-\tractcd belorv:-

4. Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens:- l. A scnior citizcn including parcnt who is unable to nraintain hirrtsclf'liorn his outt eartting ()r propert-\ o\\ltcd bl hinr. shall be cntitlcd kr tnakc an applicaticxr under sectirrn 5 irr casc ol' 14 i parent or grand-parent. against one or nrorc of his children not hcing a rninor. . a childlcss scnior citizcrt. against such ol'his relativc rel-errcd to in clausc (g) ol'sccrion 2. l. 'f he obli-eatiorr ol'thc childrcn or relativc. as thc case ma,v bc. to r.naintain a scnior citizcn extentls tothc r.rt'r.:ds of such oitizen so that senior citizcn mav le ad a normal lile. -lhc

3. obligation ol'thc chilttrcrr t() nraintain his or hcr parent extends to thc nccds ol'suclr parcntcithcr lather or nlothcr or both. as the casc rnaY hc- so that such parent Inay lead a normal lil'c.

4. Any pcrson bcing a relati"c ola senior citizen and having sufficient mcans shalI nlaintain such scnior citizen provided hc is in possession ol the propcrtv trf'such senior citizen or hc uould inherit thc pr()p!'rt\ ol'suclr scnior cilizr-n: Provided that \\hcrc nrorc than one relativcs are enlitled to inhcrit the propcrt\ of'a scnior citizen. the maintenancs shall bc palahlc b1 such rclatirc in thc proporlion in which ther rr oultl inhcrit his pr()pert\ .

17. As pcr Sectiorr 2-l ol thc- Act. 1007. tlrc tbllorving pre- requisites arc 10 bc tultllled:- I'hc transter must have been made sub.iect to thc condition that the transttrec shall providc thc basic aurcnilics and basic phl sical necds to thc tr.rnslcror. 15 l. fhe transl'crec rcfirscs or fails to provide such amenities and phl sical nccds to the translcror- [1'thc- alirresaid conditioiis arc not satisfled and thc transl'er shalI be dcemcd to have hecn nrade b1, way ol lraud or coercion or undue inllLrcncc. sLrch u translcr beconrcs voidable at thc instance ol thc translbror and the Maintenance fribunal gets.iurisdiction to declare the transti'r as void.

18. In Sudesh Chhikara (supra), in paragraph No. l3. the Ape'x Courl he ld as lirllori s:- t-1. Whcn a scnior citizen parts with his or her propcrt_"' b1' c\ecuting a gili or a rclease' or otherwisc in lavour o{'his or hcr nr-ar and tlcar ones. a condition ol looking after thc senior citizcn is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrar\. rcn ofien. such trans[crs are made out ollove and alii'ction rr ithout anr c\pcctation in return. Thcrelbrc. nhen it is allcqcd that the conditions rncntioned in sub-section ( [ ) ol'Scction lJ arc attachcd to a transf'er, cxistence ol such conditions urust bc cstablishcd belbre the Tribunal. 16 -fhe

19. said principle was also reitcratc(l by this Court in P. Rohit Saurya v. State of Telangana'o in u'.P.No.i0278 of 2023 on 08.0.1..1013

20. tn Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixitr". the Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of'Section Ii ol the Act, 2007. 2 L In the above case, mother executed a giti deed in fbvour of the son wherein it has been statcd that [[re son. donec. rnaintains the donor, the mother, and makes provision tbr er.'enthing till the end of her tif'e. A Vachanpatra./Prom issory notc \\:as also cxecuted by the son to that effect in favour ol thc mother and if he does not do so. the rnother will be at liberty to take back the gifi deed. Ilowever, the son disputed execution of the said vachanpatra/prorn issory note and according to him, it is fabricated.

22.The mother filed an application belbre thc Mair-rtcnance l ribunal seeking cancellation ol the said giti settlernent deed, the Maintenance Tribunal allowed the said irpplication anci the gili settlement deed was declarcd as null and void. -l'he sorr pret'erred an appeal which was also dismissed. Ile has lllcd a u'rit pctition befbre ''zoz5 rrfl"." (online)(rel) 4796 '" 2025 tNsc 20 I t7 the High Court ol Madhya Praclt-sh at Jabalpur. wherein thc learned Single .ludge contlmrecl the order passed by the Maintenance 'f ribunal and Appellate Autlioritv rvhilc obsen,ing that the son has not approacheld thc Court with clean hands and lailed to servc their parcnts rvho are scnior citizcr.rs- [rcrclbre. the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Authority are held to be rvell reasonc'r1 and in consonanc!' w ith the r\ct. 1007

23. Challcnging thc said orclcr ot'thc learned Single Judge, the Son pret'erred Writ Appcal anrl the [)ivisiorr Bench of the Madhya Pradesh I Iigh Courr u,hile setting asicle the' -judgnrents ol the learned Single Judge, ohscr"r'ed that Scction l.i ol the Act, 2007. ls a slandalone provision. and the lunction of'thc 'fribunal is only to find out whether the condition in thc -siti deed or otherwise contains a clause providing lbr basic arnenities and *'hether the transferee has refused or tailed to provide therr. Thcrc is no other jurisdiction vested w.ith thc'll'ibLrnal. No condition is tlrcrc in the gili deed therein for maintenancc of the transf-eror. 'l-he argurnent relating to the affidavit therein cannot bc acce'ptc-d. I f tlie intention of the parties was such, the gili dced should lrar c had a clause to thc same eflect. 18

24. Orr crarrination ol'thc said lhcts and :rlso relving on the principle laid down in Sudesh Chhikara (:ttpra ) and othcr .judgn-rents. the Apex Court disagreed lr,'ith the r ierv takcn bl the Division l]ench olthe Madhya Pradesh tligh Court bccausc it takes a strict vierv ol'the bencficial legislation.

25. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:- 2i. 'the Appellant has submitted bclirrc us thrrt such arr undenaking stands grossly' unlirllllled. and irr lrrr pciition undcl Section 23. it has bcen avcrrcd thut tlrcrc is u breakdorvn of peacclul relations intcr sc the partics. In such a situation. the 1wo conditions mentinncd in SLrtlcsh (supra) must bc appropriately interpreted to tirrthcr thc hcnctlcial nature of ltre legislation and not strictll rvhich rioLrld rcndcr otiose thc intent of the legislature. ['hcretbrc. tlrc' Singlc Judge of the lligh Court and thc tribunals belos hird rishtlr held the Gilt Deed to bc cancelled since the contlitions lbr the rvell-bcing o1'the senior citizcns \\ crc not c()nrllied \\ ith. We arc unablo t() agrec rvith thc vieu takcn [l thc l)ivisiorr Bench. because il takes a strict riclr' ot' ir hcncticial lcgislation.

24. []etbrc parting rvith thc case at hand- \\e rnust claritl thc obscrvutions madc vide the impugncd ordcr qua thc competcnc]' of the fribunaI to hand over posscssi()n ol'the propert]'. In S. Vanitha (supra). this Court ohscrred thal I I 19 'lribunals under the Act nrar ordcr cr iction il-it is necessary and expedien( to ensurc thc protcction of thc scnior citizen. 'fhcrelbrc- it cannot bc said that thc I'ribunals constituted under the Act. *hile excrcising.iurisdiction undcr Scclion 23. cannol ordcr possession to hc translcrrccl- lhis would deleat thc purpose and obiect ol'thc Act. rrhich is to provide speedy, sinrplo and incxpcnsir c rcrncclics lirr thc clderly .

25. A-trother obscrvation ol' the I ligh Court that rnust bc clarificd. is Sgqiqn ?l- be ing a standalone provision of the Act. In our considcred vie*. tlrc rclicf ar ailablc to sonior citizens under Section 2-l is intlinsicalh linkcd uith the slalement ol ob.iects ancl reasons ol thc- Act. that cldcrly citizens of our countrl . in sclnrc cirscs. arr: not being looked after. It is directly in lunherancc ol'thc oh.jectivcs ol'thc Act and empowers senior citizcns tt) sccurc thcir rights promplly when they transf-er a propert) sublcct lr the conilition of being maintaincd by the lransl'ercc. f 6. ln illachi Dcvi (l)) b1' L.lls. {supra ). thc Aper (lourt in paragraph No.40 held as lollows:- It is u,ell settlcd principlcs of larr ttrat a plain mcaning must bc attributed to the Slatutc. Als(). a statulc rnust bc construcd according to the intention of tho legislature. I'hc golden nrle ol- intcrpretation ol zl statute is that it has to be ci\ en its Iiteral and nalural rleaning. Thc intention of thc legislature rnust he tbund out tiorn the languagc employed in thc statute itscll. l he qucstion is not \\'hal is supposed 20 to lrave becn intendcd but rvhat has bcen said. (Sce Daval Sinsh i llnion ol'lndia. 1200312 SCC 593.

17. It is relevant to note that in Smt. Varinrlcr Kaur vs. Snrt. Daljit Kaurrr. the Delhi High Court held that lor attractirrq the provisions ol' Section 23( I ) of the Senior Citizens Act. the det-'d in tluestion ncerl noL expressly contain a condition thar transll'rce shall pror,'ide the basic amenities and basic physicr I ncetls to thc trirnsferor. especially in thc context olexecution ol'a sift t'eed

18. [n the said case also. tl"rere is no rnention in the lrifl dced that the son will provide basic amenities and basic |hysical necds to thc nrother, cspecially in the context of a gift deed c'xe'cuted bv a se nior citize n in {uvour ol his or her son or daughl.'r ()r L'\ cn daLrghter irr larv. it is not ditllcult to conclude that it is the lo., c ancl allcction arrd care in the old age which impels such citizenr to e\ccutc _qili l(). The Division Bench placing reliancc on tlrc principle laicl dou,n by lhr-' Apcx Court in Sutlesh Chhikara (sripra) and othcr judgments, helcl that while exercising the powcrs r-rncler Scction l-i(l ) ol the Senior Citizcns Act, on an application nro\ !'d b\ a Se ll l()t- - LPA No.587 of 2025 and batch. order dated 18.09.2025 z1 citizen secking declaration that the deed is void, the l'ribunal IS expccted to look into all the relevant matcrial and not only the bare contents ol-the application so rnade

10. In .lustice P.D. l)inakaran (sul)ra), the Strprcnrc C'our-t reiteratcd that fairness in adjudication rerluircs hoth actuaI and perceived irnpartiality. l.earned counsel fbr the petitioncrs placed re liancc on the said judgmcnt to c()ntcncl that thc rnainte nance tlibunal did not lbllorv the procedure laid dor'"'n r-rnder the Act, l007and the Rules made thercundcr rvhile acliLrdicating the application filed by l" respondent i 1. In Sri Jayashankar (supra). tlrc l{igh Court ol- Kcrala in para-eraph No.6. l, clarilled that thc cxpressiorrs "tiaud" and "cocrcion" ernployed in Section li ol'the Senior Citizens Act,2007 cannot be expanded to encolrpass the broader notions o1'liaud or' coercion as understood in gcneral cir"il lar.r'. lt uas held that a Iinding o1- fi'aud requires a lbundation ol' established fncts. and the allegations of fraudulent conduct rlrust neccssarilr bc proved by cogcnt evidence. 72 i2. ln the present case, without any supporting tnaterial, 2"'r respondent lcvelled sr.vee'ping accusations ol fi'aud and propertl'- grabbing against Petitioner No. I and cancelled seven r:egistered gilt iettlenrent dceds. Such action, in the absence of evidence, IS manife'stll arbitrary. Lrnrcasonable. and unsuslainablc in larv. l-1. I r .\shrvin Bharat Khater (supra), thr- Bombar" IIieh (iourt uphcld thc tribunal's power under Section 2.1 o1'the Senior Citizens Act to annul gift deeds executed by a senior citizen in llrvor' ol'hcr son rrhen such transt-ers ivere alleged 1o have bccn procured undcr inlluencc and resultcd in neglect. The Court cnrphasizecl that thc protectir e ob-iect o1' the Act cannot be def-eated b1' rtre.rell, ;rointing to the absencc ot'an express clause ofcare in the deed. since the rvclt'alc ol'l)arents is lhe core legislative purpose. -l'hc l'' Respondent relies on this principle t(i contend that ..i.1. even in the prc'sent case. where the rnother alleged, cieception and subsequent nc'glc'ct. the tribunal lvas competent to act LLnder Scctiorr li. 23 i5. Easu,aramoorthy C.P. (supra). the Madras IJigh Court held that thc concept of "nonlal Iilc" undcr Scction 4(l) ol'thc Act must be construed broadly to include dignity. r'uedical carc. and security, not mcrely lood and sl-relter. l'hc C'ourt quasl-rcd scttlcment deed executed under coercion, reiterating that the Act is a benellcial legislation meant to secure the life and dignitl' ol agcd parents. The Respondent invokes this dccision to ars.ue that once a senior citizcrr alleges exploitation and loss o1'dignitl in translers. the trihunal is crnpowered to intervene. 3(r. Palanimuthu (supra), thc Madras I {ish ('ourt Lrlrheld the tribunal's cancellation of a paftition deed i.r herc the scniol citizen r.r,as tbrced out of his residence, observing that tlrr-r Act's provisions are rvide enough to protect residence and security ol- senior citizens.

37.'l-he l" Respondent relies on this authoritl,to stress that thr: tribunaI has competence to interf'ere ivith propcl't]', arritngerncilts when the cflect is to deprive a parent of shelter and livclihood.

38. S. Mala (Supra) the Maclras Iligh Court held that e r cn il' a settlement deed does not recitcs lovc and alGction. *icre the' surrounding circumstances show that the transl'er was coupled n,ith 24 an expeclation of care, Section 23 of the Act, 2007. can be invoked 'the C'ourt lirrther clarified that the Act. 2007 rer;uires a beneflcial construction. and that conditions of'carc rnay be irnplied fronr thc relationsliip itse If . -l'his preccdeut is pressed into scrvice by the l" Responclent lo arsue that her gift deeds, though silent on conditions, u,ere exccutcd under the implicit r-rnderstanding olcare.

19. S. Subramanian (supra). the Madras High Coult upheld cancellatiorr ol'a scttlement deed r-rnder Section 23 ol'the Act. 1007. holcling that conclitions ol'care nray be express or irnplied, and that neglc'ct or coerciorr post-transfbr justi tled annulment.

40. In thc present case, thc [" Respondent corrtends that this decision valitlates the lribunal's jurisdiction to sct asicle transfers $,hen an agccl ;rarent demonstrates neglect, even absent an express recital ol cond itiorrs. .ll In S. Vanitha (Supra),, the Supreme Cotrfi lrarrnonizecl the Sc'nior ( itizerrs Act. 1007 uith the Protection ol' Wonren Il'om l)orneslic Vi,tlencc' Act, trphotding the tribunal's juristlictiorl to order cviction ol' a tla uqhtcr- in- larv lrotn the senior citizen's hor-rse . -l'he 25 Court enrphasized the rvelf'are ob.iective of the Act and the rrc-ed kr corlstnrL- it purposive [y'. The l{cspondent rclies on this lcading ar-rthority t() arp.ue that thc tribunal's protective.jurisdiction rnust not be read narrorvly, and thar evictior/cancellation orders ser-vc the Act's ob.iect -12. In Tajinder Singh Bakshi (supra) v. Daljit Kaur::. th.' Dclhi tligh Court upheld the District Magistrale's order cancelling a gift dced under Section 23 of the Act,2007 where the circurnstanccs slrow cd suspicious transfbr and subsecluent neglect ol' the rnothcr. '[he Courl distinguislrcd Sudcsh Chhikara (Supra) on t-rlcts. holclins that rvhcre there is evidence of coercion or implicit conditions ol' care. thc tribunal mal,annul transfers. This case is relied upon b-v., the l'' Rcspondent to contend that even where cxplicit conditions are absent. surrounding circumstances can justify cancel lation.

41. ln the tight ot'the atbresaid principles laid dorvn in the afbrcsaid judgrrents, it is relevant to note that as per Section l-.1 of the Act, 2007, the aforesaid two pre-requisites have to bc lirltillcd i.c. a)'lhe transl'er musthave been made subject to condilion that thc " Wp r.:o 1085a of 2023 Det HC 26 lransfbrec can provide thc basic anrenities and basic physical needs to the transferor'. b) -[he transt-eree rellses or I'ails to providc such arnenities arrd phvsical needs to the transferor .{4. the I '' respondent has to plead and prr''v r- thc fraud and coerclon.

45. In the present casc, the atbresaid registered gift settlement deeds are dated 15.07.1016, 29. 10.2016, 29. 10.2016, 18.11.2016,

29.01.2018. and 01.08.1024. I" respondent herein had fited the afbresaid application betbre the 2"d respondent in January, 2025. 'lhus, there is abnonral delay ol nine (9) years in l'' respondent approaching 2'd respondent.

46. As discussed supra. l'r respondent has tlled the aforesaid application betbre the 2nd rcspondent in January, 102.5 to cancel the aforesaid registered gili settlement deeds contending that the petitioners obtained the sarlr-' by plal,ing fraud. 2"d respondent cannot consider thc said aspect ol fraud. There was no dispute with regard to the afbresaid properties till .lanuary,2025. After 9 years, in January, 2025, l'' respondent claims ttrat the petitioners obtained the aforesaid registered eifl settlement decds by ptaying ftaud. l'' respondent has 27 to prove the said fraud. Except stating that the petitioners obtained the afbresaid registered gift settlcment deeds by playing fiaud, the l't respondent did not prove the said fraud. Except.making bald allegation that the petitioner ill-treated hcr, she failed to prove the said ill-treatment. I{owever, relying on the statements o1' thc daughters ol the l" respondent, 2nd respondent allowed the apptication liled by the l't respondent vide impugned order dated

17.05.2015.

47. As discussed supra, it is the specific contention of thc pctitioners that l'1 respondent has filed the said apptication belore the 2"'i respondent under the Act, 2007 at the instance ofher daugl-rters. Even 2n'l respondent has relied on the statements of the daughters of l'' rcspondent. 2"'r respondent also stated in the impugned order that the l" pctitioner, during hearing antl in his written counter admittcd that he exccuted the gift deeds on the presumption that as the oni_v son in the f-amily, he is entitled to the entire properties. During interaction with the petitioner No. l, the liibunal observed that he had the belief that orrly male mernbers ol the farnily inherit their parents property. 'fhus, l" petitioner persistently maintained that he had 28 committed nothing wrong in transt'erring the properties and money to himself and his lamily. However. he failed to produce any evidence to prove that such transf'ers w'erc carricd out w'ithout the tiec consent and knowledge of respondent No. I . 'Ihe said finding of the 2nd respondent is contrary to the record.

48. As discussed supra, in her application itself-, l '' respondenl herein has specitically mentioned that the details of the transl-ers right from 20 14. I-herelbre, l" petitioner cannot be expected to prove that the said trans{brs were made by playing fiaud without knowledge and consenl of the l'' respondent. In fact. bulden lies on the l " respondent to prove that the said transt-ers and transactions are done fraudulently. Whereas, 2nd responclcnt has thrown thc burden on thc I't petitioner which is unj usti iled.

49. 2n'r respondent in the inrplrgnerl order further irresist.ibly concluded that the l'' petitiorrer had ill-intentions to grab the property without the conscnt, cither explicit or implied, ol'his r.nother. The said hndings are also contrar)' to the record. 'Ihere is no consideration of, the abnormal clelay in I't respondent approaching the 1'"i respondent. In the impugned order. 2"d respondent lurlher held that the bank 29 records clearly show that I't petitioner used money from the joint account to buy a car, pa.v college fees, and rnake payments to builders and others. But he could not show any ploof that he had his own incorne through which he deposited money into that account. These transactions nratch exactly with that ol'the petitioner. Even the said tindings arc contrary to thc record.

50. ?nd respondent lailed to consider the abnormal delay in 1" respondent approaching 2"d respondent. It is also apt to note that 2nd respondent in the impugned order recorded that l" petitioner admittcd that he is adamant, short-tempered, annoyed with his mother and he refi-rsed to speak with her or reconcile.

51. [n the light olthe said findings, this Court called tbr the original record t-rom the 2"d respondent. Perusal of the note file would reveal that he has recorded the versious of the parties in his docket procecdings but he has not obtained the signatures of the parties. I lorvever, the pctitioners denied the same, more particularly the said alleged adrnissions.

52. [n the light of the said submissions, it is also apt to note that Section 6 of the Act, 2007 deals with the jurisdiction and 30 procedure arld sub-section 4 of Section 6 ol'the Act. sa1's that all the evidence to such proceedings shall be taken in the presence ol'thc children or relative against whonr an order tbr payrrrent ot' rnaintenance is proposed to be made and shall bc rc.'orded in the manner prescribed fbl sunrn-rons cases.

53. As pcr Section 6 (6) olthc Act. 2007. the tribunal belore hearing an aoplication Llnder Section 5 ma1'. re tcr the sarne to a conciliation olficer ancl such conciliation olficcr shall submit his tindings '"vithin onc rnonth and il' anricable scttlerne n1 ltas bce'n arrived at, the tribr.rnal shall pass an ordcr to that cll'ect

54. Section 8 of the Act, 2007 says sumrrar') procedure as case of inquiry and it is relevant. it is extracted bc-lon :-

8. Summarv procedure in case of inquirl. 1l ) In lroldins rtrrr inquilr under section 5. the liibunal n.ra1,. suh_ject to anrlulcs th3t may lrc prescribcd by the Statc (lovcrnment in this bchalt-. tirllorr such sunlnl:lr\ procedure as it deerls lit. (2) The Tribunal shall havc all the powcrs ofa Ciril ('oun tirr the ptrrpose o1 taking cvidencc on oath and ol enlbrcing the attentlance ttl u ilnesscs and of compelling thc discoverl and production ,tl docLtrrents atrd material objccts and lbr such other purposes as ttral'bc prescrihetl: and thc 'liibunat shall bc deemed to be a ('ivil Court ibr all thc'purposes olsection 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Codc ol' Crirninal Proccdurc. I 971 (l ol t974\. 31 (l) Subject to any rulc that ma) bc nradc in this behall. the lribunal may, lor the purposc ol adludicating and deciding upon any claim lor maintenance. choosc onc or nr()rc persons possessing special knou'lcdge ofany matler relevarlt to the inquin to assist it in holding the inquirl.

55. Rule 8 of thc l'elanuana Mainlenancc and Welf'are of Parents and Senior Citizens RLrlcs. l0l l (for shom, 'the Rules') deals with procedure in case ol- admission of claim and it says in case. on the date fixed in thc- notice issued under Rule 6. the opposite party appears and accepts hisihe r liability to maintain thc application and the tw,o parlies arrivc at a rnutual agreed scttlernent, the tribunal shall pass an order accordingly.

56. Rule l0 of the llulcs. dcals rvith rclerence to conciliation olflcer.

57. Rule Ii deals r.r'ith proce'edings by conciliation otficer.

58. Rule 1i deals rvith actior.r bv the tribunal in other cases. it is relcl'ant and it is extracted belorv:- ll. Actron by, the l rihrrnal in othcr crscs:- (1)hrcasc. (l) the applicant(s) and the oppositc parties do not agre'e for reltrcnce of their dispr"rtc to a Conciliation Olllccr as per Ilule 10. or (ii) the (lonciliation f)filcer appointctl rrndcr Rulc I0 sends a rcport under suh-rule (3) ol Rule ll. conveling inabilitl, to u1)rk out a settlement acceptable to both the panics. or 32 (iii) no report is rcccivcd from a Clonciliation OfTiccr r.r'ithin the stipulated tinrc lirnit ol onc nronth. or (iv) irr responsc to the notice issued under sub-rulc (l)ol l{ule ll.oneor both the paftics dccline to confirrr the settlcmcnt *rrrked out lrv tlrc Conci I iation 0 ll'iccr. Ihe Iriburml shall give to both the parties an opponunit\ ol'cridcnce in supporl ol'their respective claims. ancl shall. atier a sunr ar\ irrquir; as provided in sub- scction ( I ) of Section 8. pass such order as it dcenrs llt, (2) An ordcr passcd under Rule 7 or Rule 8 or under sLrb-nrle (l) abovc shall bc a spcaking one, spelling out thc f'acts of the case as asccrtaincd b! the Trihunal. and the reasons hrr the order. (3) While passing an order under sub-rule ( I ). directing thc opposilc paltr to pay maintenance to an applicant. the-fribunal shall takt the lirllovuing into consideration:- (a) arnount needed by the applicant to mect his/hcr basic needs cspccialll lilod- ckrthing. acconrmodation. and healthcarc: (b) ineonre ol'thc oppositc partr,: and (c) value ol. and actual and potcntial incorne fronr the propcrtr. il'an1'. of thc applicant which thc oppositc partv would inhcrir arxl'or is in possession of. (4) A copy ol'everl order passed. uhcther linal or intcrill. :hall bc qir,en to the applicarlt(s) and the opposite parl) or their re pr.scu lJri\ cs. ilt person. or shall bc sent to thcm tlrrough a process servsr or h\ rcrrislcrcd posL and a copy shall bc comrnunicalcd to thc Maintcnancc ( )r'licer. (5) I'he l'ribunal may. during the pendcncv olthc procc'erlinu rcuartlin-u nionthlv allorvirnct- [br the maintenance trnder this scction. rrrdcr such child or relatiYe to nrake a nronthlr allorvancc lor the intcrir]] rnrint('ltitn(L- of such Senior ('itizens including parent :lld tL, pa! tltc s.tnre ttt such Scnior ('itizcn including parcnt. specil-riug the marurcr irr rrhich tlic ru.nounl is to he gi\en as pcr the conrcttietrcc olthe applicant (6). A maintcnance order madc tlt.Ider this,\ct- shall have'thL silnlc lbrcc and efl'ect as an ordcr passcd tmdcr Chaptcr lX ol'the Co(ic rll ('rintinal l)rocedurc. l97l (('entral Act I ol' 197-l) anci shall bc o'cctticd in thc rnanner prcscrihcd [irr the crccLttiott of such order br that CotlL . l3 (7) On prool'ol mis-rcprc-scntation or nristakc ol'l-aot or a chanqc irr the circumstanccs olany person. receivins a monthl) allorvance undcr Section 9 ol- the r\ct. lbr the maintcnance ordc-rcd under that section to pa\ a nronthll allor.r ancc lor thc nraintenancc. thc fribunal ma1, makc sr.rch alteration- as it thinks llt. irr ['rovided tllat whcrc it appoars to the fribunal tirat. in conscqucncc ol'any decision ol'a competent Civil ( ourt. any r:rtler nrade under Section 9 ol the Act should be cancclled or varied- it shall canccl the order or. a the case rna) be varr the samc accordinglr'1.

59. In the present casc, 2n'r respondent - Tribunal failed to follow the said procedure. Though the 2"d respondent hcld that l*' petitioner adlnitted the clairn, hc ['ras not obtained the signature of the l't petitioner or other petitioners on the docket proceedings. On admission of claim by the petitioners, 2n'r respondent has to pass a order. In the preset case, 2n'r respondent f'ailed to do so.

60. In 4'h page of the in"rpugned ordeq 2nd respondent recorded that under newly inserted Sub Rule 3 of Rule 2l of the Rules, l" respondent citing negligorce ad ill-treatment by her son and daughter-in-la'w had filed the said al..plication. During the !" and 2"d appearances on 15.02.2025 and 12.02.2025, 1'' petitioner orally admitted to the tiaudulent withdrawal of funds etc.

61. In fact, Rule 2l(3) of the Rules deals rvith eviction and it is the District Collector who is having po$,er to deal with eviction and not the RDO, 2n'l respondent herein. In the present case, 34 l" responclent had filed the aforesaid application before the lnJ respondcnt seeking cancellation of registered gitt settler-nent decds but not [i)r eviction. If the l't respondent admits the claim including tiaudulent rvithdrawal, 2nd respondent should have passcd an order considering the said admission. Instead, 2"d respondent adjourned the rnattcr. fhus, 2nd respondent did not follow the procedure laid d<xvn under the Act, and Rules made thereunder.

61. In the impugned order, 2n'l respondent referred thc rr'ritten staternents ol'daughters ol 1'' respondent, in 1n'i paragraplr ol' page 7. l he same is also in violation ol the proccdurc laid dou n undcr Rules. 6-1. It is also apt to note that to ascertain the correctness in paragrirph No.2 of the page No.4 of the irnpugned orcler, this Court directed learrred Asst. Govt. Pleader for Women Development and Child Wclfare, to produce original tlle in O.P. No. D/2i4/10 li' clated Ii 03.2025 from 2"'r respondent. She has p:roduced thc original file. Perusal of the said file would reveal that 1'"rrespondettt rcserved the rratter on 15.03.2025. 35

64. Therea{ter, there is an interesting note put up by Section Assistant ol2nd respondent which is as lbllo*s:- ''Subrnitted:- I (Sec. Asst. ) havc attcndcd the survev training proerammc fbr two months (17 .03.2025 to 12.05.202,5 ) and prepared drali ordcrs as pcr thc dictation ol'R,D-O. sir and placed bet'ore lbr kind perusal and approval."

65. Thus,2nd respondent, being quasi-judicial Olllcer, instead ol- preparing order on his own on consideration of the entire rnaterial, entrusted the same to the Section Assistant who in turn, prepared draft order and placed for perusal and approval ol 2"d respondent. Below the said note, there is signature of Section Assistant dated

15.05.2025. Though the Section Assistant stated that he has prepared tlre draft order as per the dictation of the Revcnue Divisional Officer i.c. 2"d respondent, there is signature of DAO ol 2"'r respondent on the said Note File. There is no need olsubmitting Note File and thc draft of the impugned order to DAO ol l"d respondetrt. It is an order to be pronounced by 2nd respondent, a quasi - judicial authority, and it is a confidential matter/order. Theretbre, the entire approach of 2n'r 36 respondenl is in violation of the procedure laid dosn under the Act, 1007 and Rules made thereunder. 6(r. As discussed supra, there is no consrderation ol' the alirrcsaid pre-requisites of Section 23(l ) of the Act, 2007 by the 2"d rcsponclent. El en in the impugned order, there is rnention that l 't rcspondent intirnned 2"d respondent that after canccllation of thc gift scttlL-ment deeds. she wants to partition the said propertl, and distribute the same to the I'r petitioner and her daughters. Therc is a rcf'erence to the said effect in last paragraph ol'thc' page 5 ol the irnpugned order.

67. Vicle. the impugned order, 2nd respondent held that 1" rcspondent has acquired schedule -'A'and 'B'properties through her late husband and she is the absolute owner of tlrc. said properties. Thus. 2"r r:cspon<lent declared that the i" respondcnt herein is the absolute or,,ner of the said properties. 2nd respontl.'nt is not having j urisdictioni porvcr to hold so. He cannot declare the l" respondent as absolute or,"'ner ol- schedule 'A' and 'B' propertics while deciding applications tlletl under the provisions of the Act, 2007. 37

68. In the irnpugned order, 2nd respondent also held that the l'' petitioner, the son, of the l" respondenl sketched out a plan lbr the last ten years, transferred both the properties on his narle and his nvo sons. I'his was done without knowledge o[ the l"respondent on obtaining her bank details, Aadhar card and passpon etc. Io petitioner also did certain dubious transactions to show that as il he has purchased the sarne from third party, and later transf-erred it to his u,if'e's name. The said findings of 2"'r respondent arc contrary 1o the record and pleadings. l" respondent never pleaded so. 2nd respondent cannot give such finding while deciding an application liled by l" respondent under the provisions olthe Act, 2007.

69. As discussed supra, 2"d respondent without considering the object of the Act, 2007 and pre-requirements of Section 2-j( I ) of the Act. 2007, principle laid down by the Apex Courl in the afblesaid .iudgments, ordered for cancellation of the said docurnents and direcled the petitioners to retum the sum oll{s. I,63,35,600/- to the l " respondent holding that the samc were transf-erred fiaudulently.

70. He has also further held that il the petitioncrs fbils to relurn the said money, l'' respondent rnay approach concern]9 38 District Police Oltlcials for recovery of money and initiate criminal proceedings against tlrem- The said findings ol ?nd respondent in the irnpugned ordcr are also contrary to the object of thc A'ct, 2007 and plocedure laid dorvn under the Act and Rules made thereunder. He has to decide' the application filed by 1'' respondent firr maintenance and cancellation ol the registered gilt deeds. He cannot transgress his j u risd iction.'pow er and direct the petitioners to deposit thc saicl arnount, liriling rvhich, lre cannot observe that 1'1 responderrt may approach the Police olficials. 7l . As discusscd supra, the impugned order is an appealable order in terrns ol Section 16( I ) of the Act, 2007. Though the impugned order is an appealable order, the present rvrit petition is maintainablc since the' 2"d respondent failed to follou'the procedurc laid dorvn undcr tlre Act. 1007 and Rules made thereunder and the impugnerl orcler is rvithout jurisdiction. 2"d respondent has entrustccl preparation ol- the irnpugned ordcr to Section Assistant and betbre pronouncclrlent of the same. Section Assistant, t)A0 ol f"r rcsponderrt lirrs perused thc said impugned order on 15.05.2015 itself. In tbct, thc DAO ol'1"'r respondent is not expected to know the result 39 ol- the irrpugned order which was pronounced later on 17.05.2025. Whereas, Section Assistant, DAO ot 2"'i respondcnt signed on thc Note File on 15.05.2025 itse[I'. Thus, the entire procedure adopted by t-lrc 2"'r resprondent is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Act. 2007 and the Rules made thereundcr. Thus, despite availabitity ol the alte rnative remedy of appeal in terms of Section l6( I ) of the Act. 2007, the present writ petition is maintainable. f'he said principlc is also laid down by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Thx vs. Commercial Steel Limited2r and Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marksza.

72. Furtheq there is no endorsement in Note File that the inrprrgnecl order was pronounced on 17 .05.2025. Section Assistant cannot subrnit the draft order to the DAO and DAO cannot go throu-eh the sarne and sign. 7i. Viewed l'rorn any angle, the impugned order is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Act,2007 and is liable to be sct asidc. " (tot I ) li sc'(' 694 '' I 1998) tt sc(' I 40

74. Irr thc light of-thc afbresaid discussion. this writ petition is allou'ed. -fhc inrpugncd ordcr dated I7.05.2025 passed bv the llevcnLre Dir. isionel Ofllccr. is set asidc ('onscrluentlr. nriscellancous petitions. il anr. pending in this writ petition. shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-C. DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR \ ECTION OFFICER To, \

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, AND TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad District.

2. THE Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Dr.B-R.Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRl. MANU. Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI T.P S HARSHA. Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP FOR WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 6. Two CD Copies High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] BM 1y- I I HIGH COURT DATED:261A912025 ORDER WP.No.17870 of 2025 TiiE SIA> c)n I 0 t r\[lj zff,( \=.==r, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o \v{ 1,, I I I I I