Sri Kurakula Gajendra Mohan vs Smt.Kurakula Shanta on 26 September, 2025

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Sri Kurakula Gajendra Mohan vs Smt.Kurakula Shanta on 26 September, 2025

Bench: K. Lakshman

                                     1




            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                WRIT PETITION No. 17870 of 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri Manu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri T.P.S. Harsha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Women and Child Welfare Department appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.05.2025 in Case No.D/234/2025 of 2nd respondent. Vide the aforesaid order, 2nd respondent held that properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' and 'B' of the application filed by 1st respondent are acquired by the 1st respondent by her late husband and she is the absolute owner of the said properties etc., and ordered cancellation of all seven (7) registered gift settlement deeds.

3. 1st respondent, mother of the 1st petitioner, mother-in-law of 2nd petitioner and grandmother of petitioner Nos.3 to 5, had filed an application before 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 2 (for short, 'the Act, 2007') seeking cancellation of seven (7) registered gift settlement deeds contending as follows:-

i. Her late husband, Sri Kurakula Gangadhar, retired as a Senior Clerk from APSEB in the year 2001. He died on 21.07.2014. He has one son and 4 daughters.

ii. Petitioners herein have obtained the following registered gift settlement deeds fraudulently in respect of schedule 'A' property:-

a) Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.4142/2016 dated 15.07.2016 (200 sq. yards).

b) Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.6352/2016 dated 29.10.2016 (279.72 sq. yards altered later to 233.88 sq. yards).

c) Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.6353/2016 dated 29.10.2016 (247.84 sq. yards altered later to 207.22 sq. yards).

d) Rectification Deeds bearing document Nos.6595/2016 & 6596/2016 dated 18.11.2016.

e) Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.1651/2018 dated 29.01.2018 (400 sq. yards, Schedule "B").

f) Gift Settlement Deed No.4265/2024 dated 01.08.2024 (remaining 208.9 sq. yards).

iii. She has explained as to how different transactions took place on her 850 sq.yards of land in a tabular form of paragraph 3 Nos.1 and 2 of the said application filed before 2nd respondent in respect of Schedule 'A' and 'B' property.

iv. She has also narrated about withdrawal of money from her pension account and other bank accounts fraudulently in paragraph No.4 of the application.

v. 1st petitioner, her son, created dubious account on her name without her knowledge, used the said account to receive rental payments from Reliance Smart. He has also used the said dubious account to transfer funds from her other two accounts. vi. Her son used to write a cheque for Rs.25,000/- every month and used to get her signature on it. Very rarely, she used to ask to withdraw Rs.30 or 40, 000/- and a cheque for the said amount. She has narrated the said facts in paragraph No.5 of the application and also mentioned in a tabular form. vii. Thus, according to 1st respondent, a total amount of Rs.24,10,000/- has been transferred fraudulently from her pension account by the 1st petitioner, her son. Petitioners cheated her of an amount of Rs.1,63,35,600/- from all her bank accounts. She has also mentioned the said details in a 4 tabular form including the details of accounts, date of transfer, amount etc. viii. 1st petitioner, her son, managed all financial transactions including rents.

ix. Petitioners obtained the aforesaid gift settlement deeds fraudulently. 1st petitioner's son sketched out a plan for the last ten years and transferred both the properties into his and his son's names.

x. They are neglecting 1st respondent and not taking care of her welfare and they have abused 1st respondent in filthy language.

xi. 1st petitioner tried to hit her. 2nd petitioner started spreading rumours against 1st respondent.

xii. She would like to re-claim her property and she should have the right to decide on how her property is utilized rather than forcibly being taken away from her.

4. With the said contentions, 1st respondent sought to cancel all the registered gift settlement deeds and rectification deeds declaring them as null and void, restore schedule 'A' and 'B' 5 properties in her favour by declaring all the registered gift settlement deeds and rectification deeds as null and void, transfer the said properties to her name, recover the money from the 1st petitioner, her son, which is transacted fraudulently. She has also sought a direction to the petitioners herein to deposit an amount of Rs.1,63,35,600/- to the bank account of 1st respondent which was fraudulently transferred from her account to the account of the petitioners.

5. The petitioners herein filed counter before the 2nd respondent contending as follows:-

i. The application filed by 1st respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act, 2007 is not maintainable. She was drawing pension of Rs.70,000/- per month and owns house at Quthbiguda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad and rented out three floors and receiving a rent of Rs.30,000/- per month there from. Therefore, she cannot claim maintenance from the petitioners under Section 4(1) of the Act, 2007.

ii. 1st respondent sought to cancel the registered gift settlement deeds and rectification deeds on the vague allegation of fraudulent transactions.

iii. 1st petitioner's father purchased schedule-A property in the name of 1st respondent's brother.

iv. 1st respondent has no income to purchase schedule -A property. After death of her husband, 1st respondent herself, voluntarily gave her consent and out of her full knowledge executed registered gift settlement deeds in favour of the petitioners. Being the only son, out of love and affection, 1st respondent executed all the registered gift settlement deeds in favour of the petitioners.

v. She is aware of the development agreement entered with the builder including the terms. The said transaction took place from 2016 to 2021.

vi. The petitioners never transferred the amount fraudulently as alleged by 1st respondent.

vii. She has filed the aforesaid application before the 2nd respondent at the instance of her daughters with a malafide intention.

viii.She has transferred certain properties in the name of her daughters and the details of the same are mentioned in paragraph No.18 of the counter.

6. With the said submissions, the petitioners sought to dismiss the said application filed by 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent.

7. Vide impugned order dated 17.05.2025, in Case No. D/234/2025, 2nd respondent allowed the said application, with the following directions:-

a) Concerned Registrars and Sub Registrars are directed to cancel the aforesaid registered gift settlement deeds mentioned in schedule 'A' and 'B' properties by declaring that those properties acquired by the 1st respondent through her husband and she is the absolute owner of the said properties, 8

b) To transfer all the developed property shares acquired by the petitioners to the name of the 1st respondent in the manner that no third party rights are affected.

c) The petitioners herein are directed to transfer an amount of Rs.1,63,35,600/- to the account of 1st respondent within thirty (30) days, failing which, the 1st respondent shall take steps to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein.

d) In case, the petitioners herein indulges in any criminal activities with the 1st respondent, necessary action would be taken against them.

8. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition contending as follows:-

i. The 2nd respondent exceeded his jurisdiction and declared that the 1st respondent acquired the said properties through her late husband and she is the absolute owner of the said properties etc. ii. The impugned order lacks twin conditions as laid down under Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007.

iii. There is abnormal delay in approaching 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent.

iv. There is no consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order.

v. The impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of the procedure laid down under the Act, 2007. Therefore, though there is an alternative remedy of appeal and the impugned order is an appealable order in terms of Section 16 (1) of the Act, 2007, the present writ petition is maintainable.

9. 1st respondent filed counter contending as follows:-

i. The present writ petition is not maintainable since the impugned order is an appealable order in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act. Instead of preferring an appeal, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. ii. On consideration of the entire documents only, 2nd respondent passed the impugned order.

iii. 1st petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent in person and admitted the claim made by 1st respondent.

iv. The Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation. Applying strict construction of language in Section 23 is not necessary. v. On consideration of the said aspects only, 2ndrespondent has allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent and ordered for cancellation of the aforesaid registered gift settlements deeds etc. vi. There is no error in it.

10. With the aforesaid contentions, the 1st respondent sought to dismiss the writ petition.

11. In support of their contentions, the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi 1, Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and Ors 2, Illachi Devi (D) by L.Rs. vs. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India3, K.Lokesh V Bangalore Dist. Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior 1 2022 (17) SCR 876 2 AIR 2011 (SC) 3711 3 AIR 2003 SC 3397 11 Citizen Appellate RDO 4, Gujrat Agro Industries company Limited vs The Municipal corporation of the city of Ahmedabad 5, S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban6, High court of Karnataka in C. Arasoji Rao Vs The Bangalore Dist. Maintenance7, Sri Jayashankar vs. the Asst. Commissioner, North Taluk and Ors 8, High Court of Kerala in Seemol @ Sindhu vs. The Union of India9 and the Madras High Court in Maheshwaran M. Vs The District Collector10, the Telangana High Court in P. Rohit Saurya v. State of Telangana 11 and H. Deepika vs Appellate Tribunal 12.

12. On the other hand, 1st respondent relied on the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in Ashwin Bharat Khater v. Urvashi Bharti Khater 13, Madras High Court in Easwaramoorthy C.P. v. C. Paranthaman 14, Palanimuthu v. The Principal 4 2025 (1) CurCC 15 5 AIR 1999 SC 1818 6 (2021) 15 SCC 730 7 2025 Supreme (online)(KAR) 338 8 2024 SUPREME (KARNATAKA) 677 9 2024 Supreme (online)(kerala)7433 10 2024 Supreme (online) (MAD) 30159 11 2025 supreme (online)(Tel) 4796 12 2020 (supreme)(Tel) 69 13 2023 SCC Online Bom 1921 14 2025 SCC Online Mad 12 Officer, RDO Namakkal 15, S. Subramanian v. District Collector16 Tajinder Singh Bakshi v. Daljit Kaur17, the Madras High Court in S.Mala vs. District Arbitrator 18,

13. Learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare also supports the order passed by the 2nd respondent.

14. Both Sri Manu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Avinash Desai, learned senior counsel, appearing for petitioners and 1st respondent respectively made their submissions extensively and also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court, this Court and other High Courts, the same will be discussed and considered in the below mentioned paragraphs.

15. In the light of the said submissions, it is relevant to note that Section 23 of the Act, 2007 deals with transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances and the same is extracted below:-

23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

15

2024 SCC Online Mad 8409 16 WA No. 195 of 2025 17 WP No. 10854 of 2023 Del HC 18 (2025) SCC Online Mad 1764 13

1. Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs, the said transfer of property shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor be declared void by the Tribunal.

2. Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part, thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.

3. If any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organization referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.

16. Section 4 of the Act, 2007 is also relevant and it is extracted below:-

4. Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens:-

1. A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 in case of -

i. parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor, ii. a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of section 2,

2. The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends tothe needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.

3. The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parenteither father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.

4. Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen:

Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property.

17. As per Section 23 of the Act, 2007, the following pre-

requisites are to be fulfilled:-

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, 15

2. The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

If the aforesaid conditions are not satisfied and the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by way of fraud or coercion or undue influence, such a transfer becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.

18. In Sudesh Chhikara (supra), in paragraph No.13, the Apex Court held as follows:-

13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal. 16

19. The said principle was also reiterated by this Court in P. Rohit Saurya v. State of Telangana 19 in W.P.No.30278 of 2023 on 08.04.2023.

20. In Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit20, the Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 23 of the Act, 2007.

21. In the above case, mother executed a gift deed in favour of the son wherein it has been stated that the son, donee, maintains the donor, the mother, and makes provision for everything till the end of her life. A Vachanpatra/Promissory note was also executed by the son to that effect in favour of the mother and if he does not do so, the mother will be at liberty to take back the gift deed. However, the son disputed execution of the said vachanpatra/promissory note and according to him, it is fabricated.

22.The mother filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal seeking cancellation of the said gift settlement deed, the Maintenance Tribunal allowed the said application and the gift settlement deed was declared as null and void. The son preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. He has filed a writ petition before 19 2025 supreme (online)(Tel) 4796 20 2025 INSC 20 17 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, wherein the learned Single Judge confirmed the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Authority while observing that the son has not approached the Court with clean hands and failed to serve their parents who are senior citizens. Therefore, the orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Authority are held to be well reasoned and in consonance with the Act, 2007.

23. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, the Son preferred Writ Appeal and the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while setting aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge, observed that Section 23 of the Act, 2007, is a standalone provision, and the function of the Tribunal is only to find out whether the condition in the gift deed or otherwise contains a clause providing for basic amenities and whether the transferee has refused or failed to provide them. There is no other jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal. No condition is there in the gift deed therein for maintenance of the transferor. The argument relating to the affidavit therein cannot be accepted. If the intention of the parties was such, the gift deed should have had a clause to the same effect. 18

24. On examination of the said facts and also relying on the principle laid down in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) and other judgments, the Apex Court disagreed with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court because it takes a strict view of the beneficial legislation.

25. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:-

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 the parties. In such a situation, the two conditions mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial 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 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 a beneficial legislation.

24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must clarify the observations made vide the impugned order qua the competency of the Tribunal to hand over possession of the property. In S. Vanitha (supra), this Court observed that 19 Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.

25. Another observation of the High Court that must be clarified, is Section 23 being a standalone provision of the Act. In our considered view, the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee.

26. In Illachi Devi (D) by L.Rs. (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph No.40 held as follows:-

It is well settled principles of law that a plain meaning must be attributed to the Statute. Also, a statute must be construed according to the intention of the legislature. The golden rule of interpretation of a statute is that it has to be given its literal and natural meaning. The intention of the legislature must be found out from the language employed in the statute itself. The question is not what is supposed 20 to have been intended but what has been said. (See Dayal Singh v. Union of India, [2003] 2 SCC 593.

27. It is relevant to note that in Smt. Varinder Kaur vs. Smt. Daljit Kaur 21, the Delhi High Court held that for attracting the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, the deed in question need not expressly contain a condition that transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, especially in the context of execution of a gift feed.

28. In the said case also, there is no mention in the gift deed that the son will provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the mother, especially in the context of a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his or her son or daughter or even daughter in law, it is not difficult to conclude that it is the love and affection and care in the old age which impels such citizens to execute gift deed.

29. The Division Bench placing reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) and other judgments, held that while exercising the powers under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, on an application moved by a senior 21 LPA No.587 of 2025 and batch, order dated 18.09.2025 21 citizen seeking declaration that the deed is void, the Tribunal is expected to look into all the relevant material and not only the bare contents of the application so made.

30. In Justice P.D. Dinakaran (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that fairness in adjudication requires both actual and perceived impartiality. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the said judgment to contend that the maintenance tribunal did not follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 2007and the Rules made thereunder while adjudicating the application filed by 1st respondent.

31. In Sri Jayashankar (supra), the High Court of Kerala in paragraph No.6.1, clarified that the expressions "fraud" and "coercion" employed in Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act,2007 cannot be expanded to encompass the broader notions of fraud or coercion as understood in general civil law. It was held that a finding of fraud requires a foundation of established facts, and the allegations of fraudulent conduct must necessarily be proved by cogent evidence.

32. In the present case, without any supporting material, 2nd respondent levelled sweeping accusations of fraud and property- grabbing against Petitioner No.1 and cancelled seven registered gift settlement deeds. Such action, in the absence of evidence, is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law.

33. In Ashwin Bharat Khater (supra), the Bombay High Court upheld the tribunal's power under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act to annul gift deeds executed by a senior citizen in favor of her son when such transfers were alleged to have been procured under influence and resulted in neglect. The Court emphasized that the protective object of the Act cannot be defeated by merely pointing to the absence of an express clause of care in the deed, since the welfare of parents is the core legislative purpose.

34. The 1st Respondent relies on this principle to contend that even in the present case, where the mother alleged, deception and subsequent neglect, the tribunal was competent to act under Section

23. 23

35. Easwaramoorthy C.P. (supra), the Madras High Court held that the concept of "normal life" under Section 4(2) of the Act must be construed broadly to include dignity, medical care, and security, not merely food and shelter. The Court quashed a settlement deed executed under coercion, reiterating that the Act is a beneficial legislation meant to secure the life and dignity of aged parents. The Respondent invokes this decision to argue that once a senior citizen alleges exploitation and loss of dignity in transfers, the tribunal is empowered to intervene.

36. Palanimuthu (supra), the Madras High Court upheld the tribunal's cancellation of a partition deed where the senior citizen was forced out of his residence, observing that the Act's provisions are wide enough to protect residence and security of senior citizens.

37. The 1st Respondent relies on this authority to stress that the tribunal has competence to interfere with property arrangements when the effect is to deprive a parent of shelter and livelihood.

38. S. Mala (Supra) the Madras High Court held that even if a settlement deed does not recites love and affection, where the surrounding circumstances show that the transfer was coupled with 24 an expectation of care, Section 23 of the Act, 2007, can be invoked. The Court further clarified that the Act, 2007 requires a beneficial construction, and that conditions of care may be implied from the relationship itself. This precedent is pressed into service by the 1st Respondent to argue that her gift deeds, though silent on conditions, were executed under the implicit understanding of care.

39. S. Subramanian (supra), the Madras High Court upheld cancellation of a settlement deed under Section 23 of the Act, 2007, holding that conditions of care may be express or implied, and that neglect or coercion post-transfer justified annulment.

40. In the present case, the 1st Respondent contends that this decision validates the tribunal's jurisdiction to set aside transfers when an aged parent demonstrates neglect, even absent an express recital of conditions.

41. In S. Vanitha (Supra), the Supreme Court harmonized the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, upholding the tribunal's jurisdiction to order eviction of a daughter-in-law from the senior citizen's house. The 25 Court emphasized the welfare objective of the Act and the need to construe it purposively. The Respondent relies on this leading authority to argue that the tribunal's protective jurisdiction must not be read narrowly, and that eviction/cancellation orders serve the Act's object.

42. In Tajinder Singh Bakshi (supra) v. Daljit Kaur22, the Delhi High Court upheld the District Magistrate's order cancelling a gift deed under Section 23 of the Act, 2007 where the circumstances showed suspicious transfer and subsequent neglect of the mother. The Court distinguished Sudesh Chhikara (Supra) on facts, holding that where there is evidence of coercion or implicit conditions of care, the tribunal may annul transfers. This case is relied upon by the 1st Respondent to contend that even where explicit conditions are absent, surrounding circumstances can justify cancellation.

43. In the light of the aforesaid principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is relevant to note that as per Section 23 of the Act, 2007, the aforesaid two pre-requisites have to be fulfilled i.e.

a) The transfer musthave been made subject to condition that the 22 WP No. 10854 of 2023 Del HC 26 transferee can provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor.

44. The 1st respondent has to plead and prove the fraud and coercion.

45. In the present case, the aforesaid registered gift settlement deeds are dated 15.07.2016, 29.10.2016, 29.10.2016, 18.11.2016, 29.01.2018, and 01.08.2024. 1st respondent herein had filed the aforesaid application before the 2nd respondent in January, 2025. Thus, there is abnormal delay of nine (9) years in 1st respondent approaching 2nd respondent.

46. As discussed supra, 1st respondent has filed the aforesaid application before the 2nd respondent in January, 2025 to cancel the aforesaid registered gift settlement deeds contending that the petitioners obtained the same by playing fraud. 2nd respondent cannot consider the said aspect of fraud. There was no dispute with regard to the aforesaid properties till January, 2025. After 9 years, in January, 2025, 1st respondent claims that the petitioners obtained the aforesaid registered gift settlement deeds by playing fraud. 1st respondent has 27 to prove the said fraud. Except stating that the petitioners obtained the aforesaid registered gift settlement deeds by playing fraud, the 1st respondent did not prove the said fraud. Except making bald allegation that the petitioner ill-treated her, she failed to prove the said ill-treatment. However, relying on the statements of the daughters of the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent vide impugned order dated 17.05.2025.

47. As discussed supra, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that 1st respondent has filed the said application before the 2nd respondent under the Act, 2007 at the instance of her daughters. Even 2nd respondent has relied on the statements of the daughters of 1st respondent. 2nd respondent also stated in the impugned order that the 1st petitioner, during hearing and in his written counter admitted that he executed the gift deeds on the presumption that as the only son in the family, he is entitled to the entire properties. During interaction with the petitioner No.1, the Tribunal observed that he had the belief that only male members of the family inherit their parents property. Thus, 1st petitioner persistently maintained that he had 28 committed nothing wrong in transferring the properties and money to himself and his family. However, he failed to produce any evidence to prove that such transfers were carried out without the free consent and knowledge of respondent No.1. The said finding of the 2nd respondent is contrary to the record.

48. As discussed supra, in her application itself, 1st respondent herein has specifically mentioned that the details of the transfers right from 2014. Therefore, 1st petitioner cannot be expected to prove that the said transfers were made by playing fraud without knowledge and consent of the 1st respondent. In fact, burden lies on the 1st respondent to prove that the said transfers and transactions are done fraudulently. Whereas, 2nd respondent has thrown the burden on the 1st petitioner which is unjustified.

49. 2nd respondent in the impugned order further irresistibly concluded that the 1st petitioner had ill-intentions to grab the property without the consent, either explicit or implied, of his mother. The said findings are also contrary to the record. There is no consideration of the abnormal delay in 1st respondent approaching the 2nd respondent. In the impugned order, 2nd respondent further held that the bank 29 records clearly show that 1st petitioner used money from the joint account to buy a car, pay college fees, and make payments to builders and others. But he could not show any proof that he had his own income through which he deposited money into that account. These transactions match exactly with that of the petitioner. Even the said findings are contrary to the record.

50. 2nd respondent failed to consider the abnormal delay in 1st respondent approaching 2nd respondent. It is also apt to note that 2nd respondent in the impugned order recorded that 1st petitioner admitted that he is adamant, short-tempered, annoyed with his mother and he refused to speak with her or reconcile.

51. In the light of the said findings, this Court called for the original record from the 2nd respondent. Perusal of the note file would reveal that he has recorded the versions of the parties in his docket proceedings but he has not obtained the signatures of the parties. However, the petitioners denied the same, more particularly the said alleged admissions.

52. In 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 and sub-section 4 of Section 6 of the Act, says that all the evidence to such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the children or relative against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons cases.

53. As per Section 6 (6) of the Act, 2007, the tribunal before hearing an application under Section 5 may, refer the same to a conciliation officer and such conciliation officer shall submit his findings within one month and if amicable settlement has been arrived at, the tribunal shall pass an order to that effect.

54. Section 8 of the Act, 2007 says summary procedure as case of inquiry and it is relevant, it is extracted below:-

8. Summary procedure in case of inquiry.--(1) In holding any inquiry under section 5, the Tribunal may, subject to anyrules that may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it deems fit.

(2) The Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(3) Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf, the Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating and deciding upon any claim for maintenance, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.

55. Rule 8 of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 (for short, 'the Rules') deals with procedure in case of admission of claim and it says in case, on the date fixed in the notice issued under Rule 6, the opposite party appears and accepts his/her liability to maintain the application and the two parties arrive at a mutual agreed settlement, the tribunal shall pass an order accordingly.

56. Rule 10 of the Rules, deals with reference to conciliation officer.

57. Rule 11 deals with proceedings by conciliation officer.

58. Rule 13 deals with action by the tribunal in other cases, it is relevant and it is extracted below:-

13. Action by the Tribunal in other cases:-

(1) In case, (1) the applicant(s) and the opposite parties do not agree for reference of their dispute to a Conciliation Officer as per Rule 10, or

(ii) the Conciliation Officer appointed under Rule 10 sends a report under sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, conveying inability to work out a settlement acceptable to both the parties, or 32

(iii) no report is received from a Conciliation Officer within the stipulated time limit of one month, or

(iv) in response to the notice issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 12, one or both the parties decline to confirm the settlement worked out by the Conciliation Officer.

The Tribunal shall give to both the parties an opportunity of evidence in support of their respective claims, and shall, after a summary inquiry as provided in sub- section (1) of Section 8, pass such order as it deems fit. (2) An order passed under Rule 7 or Rule 8 or under sub-rule (1) above shall be a speaking one, spelling out the facts of the case as ascertained by the Tribunal, and the reasons for the order.

(3) While passing an order under sub-rule (1), directing the opposite party to pay maintenance to an applicant, the Tribunal shall take the following into consideration:-

(a) amount needed by the applicant to meet his/her basic needs, especially food, clothing, accommodation, and healthcare;

(b) income of the opposite party; and

(c) value of, and actual and potential income from the property, if any, of the applicant which the opposite party would inherit and/or is in possession of.

(4) A copy of every order passed, whether final or interim, shall be given to the applicant(s) and the opposite party or their representatives, in person, or shall be sent to them through a process server or by registered post and a copy shall be communicated to the Maintenance Officer. (5) The Tribunal may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this section, order such child or relative to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of such Senior Citizens including parent and to pay the same to such Senior Citizen including parent, specifying the manner in which the amount is to be given as per the convenience of the applicant. (6). A maintenance order made under this Act, shall have the same force and effect as an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) and shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code. 33 (7) On proof of mis-representation or mistake of fact or a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving a monthly allowance under Section 9 of the Act, for the maintenance ordered under that section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, the Tribunal may make such alteration, as it thinks fit, in Provided that where it appears to the Tribunal that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under Section 9 of the Act should be cancelled or varied, it shall cancel the order or, a the case may be vary the same accordingly].

59. In the present case, 2nd respondent - Tribunal failed to follow the said procedure. Though the 2nd respondent held that 1st petitioner admitted the claim, he has not obtained the signature of the 1st petitioner or other petitioners on the docket proceedings. On admission of claim by the petitioners, 2nd respondent has to pass a order. In the preset case, 2nd respondent failed to do so.

60. In 4th page of the impugned order, 2nd respondent recorded that under newly inserted Sub Rule 3 of Rule 21 of the Rules, 1st respondent citing negligence ad ill-treatment by her son and daughter-in-law had filed the said application. During the 1st and 2nd appearances on 15.02.2025 and 22.02.2025, 1st petitioner orally admitted to the fraudulent withdrawal of funds etc.

61. In fact, Rule 21(3) of the Rules deals with eviction and it is the District Collector who is having power to deal with eviction and not the RDO, 2nd respondent herein. In the present case, 34 1st respondent had filed the aforesaid application before the 2nd respondent seeking cancellation of registered gift settlement deeds but not for eviction. If the 1st respondent admits the claim including fraudulent withdrawal, 2nd respondent should have passed an order considering the said admission. Instead, 2nd respondent adjourned the matter. Thus, 2nd respondent did not follow the procedure laid down under the Act, and Rules made thereunder.

62. In the impugned order, 2nd respondent referred the written statements of daughters of 1st respondent, in 2nd paragraph of page 7. The same is also in violation of the procedure laid down under Rules.

63. It is also apt to note that to ascertain the correctness in paragraph No.2 of the page No.4 of the impugned order, this Court directed learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, to produce original file in O.P. No. D/234/2015, dated 15.03.2025 from 2nd respondent. She has produced the original file. Perusal of the said file would reveal that 2nd respondent reserved the matter on 15.03.2025.

64. Thereafter, there is an interesting note put up by Section Assistant of 2nd respondent which is as follows:-

"Submitted:-

I (Sec. Asst.) have attended the survey training programme for two months (17.03.2025 to 12.05.2025) and prepared draft orders as per the dictation of R.D.O. sir and placed before for kind perusal and approval."

65. Thus, 2nd respondent, being quasi-judicial Officer, instead of preparing order on his own on consideration of the entire material, entrusted the same to the Section Assistant who in turn, prepared draft order and placed for perusal and approval of 2nd respondent. Below the said note, there is signature of Section Assistant dated 15.05.2025. Though the Section Assistant stated that he has prepared the draft order as per the dictation of the Revenue Divisional Officer i.e. 2nd respondent, there is signature of DAO of 2nd respondent on the said Note File. There is no need of submitting Note File and the draft of the impugned order to DAO of 2nd respondent. It is an order to be pronounced by 2nd respondent, a quasi - judicial authority, and it is a confidential matter/order. Therefore, the entire approach of 2nd 36 respondent is in violation of the procedure laid down under the Act, 2007 and Rules made thereunder.

66. As discussed supra, there is no consideration of the aforesaid pre-requisites of Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007 by the 2nd respondent. Even in the impugned order, there is mention that 1st respondent informed 2nd respondent that after cancellation of the gift settlement deeds, she wants to partition the said property and distribute the same to the 1st petitioner and her daughters. There is a reference to the said effect in last paragraph of the page 5 of the impugned order.

67. Vide the impugned order, 2nd respondent held that 1st respondent has acquired schedule -'A' and 'B' properties through her late husband and she is the absolute owner of the said properties. Thus, 2nd respondent declared that the 1st respondent herein is the absolute owner of the said properties. 2nd respondent is not having jurisdiction/power to hold so. He cannot declare the 1st respondent as absolute owner of schedule 'A' and 'B' properties while deciding applications filed under the provisions of the Act, 2007. 37

68. In the impugned order, 2nd respondent also held that the 1st petitioner, the son, of the 1st respondent sketched out a plan for the last ten years, transferred both the properties on his name and his two sons. This was done without knowledge of the 1strespondent on obtaining her bank details, Aadhar card and passport etc. 1st petitioner also did certain dubious transactions to show that as if he has purchased the same from third party, and later transferred it to his wife's name. The said findings of 2nd respondent are contrary to the record and pleadings. 1st respondent never pleaded so. 2nd respondent cannot give such finding while deciding an application filed by 1st respondent under the provisions of the Act, 2007.

69. As discussed supra, 2nd respondent without considering the object of the Act, 2007 and pre-requirements of Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007, principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, ordered for cancellation of the said documents and directed the petitioners to return the sum of Rs.1,63,35,600/- to the 1st respondent holding that the same were transferred fraudulently.

70. He has also further held that if the petitioners fails to return the said money, 1st respondent may approach concerned 38 District Police Officials for recovery of money and initiate criminal proceedings against them. The said findings of 2nd respondent in the impugned order are also contrary to the object of the Act, 2007 and procedure laid down under the Act and Rules made thereunder. He has to decide the application filed by 1st respondent for maintenance and cancellation of the registered gift deeds. He cannot transgress his jurisdiction/power and direct the petitioners to deposit the said amount, failing which, he cannot observe that 1st respondent may approach the Police officials.

71. As discussed supra, the impugned order is an appealable order in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act, 2007. Though the impugned order is an appealable order, the present writ petition is maintainable since the 2nd respondent failed to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 2007 and Rules made thereunder and the impugned order is without jurisdiction. 2nd respondent has entrusted preparation of the impugned order to Section Assistant and before pronouncement of the same, Section Assistant, DAO of 2nd respondent has perused the said impugned order on 15.05.2025 itself. In fact, the DAO of 2nd respondent is not expected to know the result 39 of the impugned order which was pronounced later on 17.05.2025. Whereas, Section Assistant, DAO of 2nd respondent signed on the Note File on 15.05.2025 itself. Thus, the entire procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Act, 2007 and the Rules made thereunder. Thus, despite availability of the alternative remedy of appeal in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act, 2007, the present writ petition is maintainable. The said principle is also laid down by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. Commercial Steel Limited 23 and Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks 24.

72. Further, there is no endorsement in Note File that the impugned order was pronounced on 17.05.2025. Section Assistant cannot submit the draft order to the DAO and DAO cannot go through the same and sign.

73. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Act, 2007 and is liable to be set aside.

(2021) 14 SCC 694 24 (1998) 8 SCC 1 40

74. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, is set aside.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date:26.09.2025.

Note: Registry is directed to return the original file produced by R.2 to the concerned under proper acknowledgment.

b/o.vvr

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court