Ramalakshmamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^theorder dated 12.12.2024 in W.P.No. 17356 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. — Between:

¶10

Ramalakshmamma, W/o. Chinna Gangulappa, Aged about 82 years, R/o. Mummadivarapalli Village, Kothakota Panchayat, Guluru Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District.

¶11

G. Nanjamma, W/o. G. Govind Reddy, aged about 52 years, R/o. Cheruvumundarapalli Village, Somghatta Post, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS No.5 & 6 AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department for Women and Senior Citizens, Secretariat Buildings, At Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

The Maintenance Tribunal, Represented by Presiding^Officer, Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Penukonda, Ananthpur District.

¶15

The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department Ananthapur, Ananthapur District.

¶16

The Sub Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department,^Chilamathur Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶18

A. Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o. Gangi Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Sanaganipalfi Village, Chagaleru Panchayat,

¶19

Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthpur District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 17356 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of writ appeal. ^

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶24

Between:

¶25

A. Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o. Gangi Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Sanaganipalli Village, Chagaleru Panchayat, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthpur District.

¶26

...PETITIONER/5‘'’ RESPONDENT

¶27

AND

¶28

Ramalakshmamma, W/o. Chinna Gangulappa, Aged about⁸² years; R/o. Mummadivarapalli Village, Kothakota Panchayat, Guluru Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District.

¶29

G. Nanjamma, W/o. G. Govind Reddy, aged about 52 years, R/o. Cheruvumundarapalli Village, Somghatta Post, Chilamathur Mandal Ananthapur District.

¶30

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT APPELLANTS

¶31

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department for Women and Senior Citizens, Secretariat Buildings, At Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.

¶32

The Maintenance Tribunal, Represented by Presiding Officer. Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Penukonda, Ananthpur District./

¶33

r

¶34

/ '

¶35

The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department Ananthapur, Ananthapur District.

¶36

The Sub Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department, Chilamathur Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District

¶37

^ ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt 18.02.2025 in W.A.No.125 of 2025 and dismiss the writ appeal.

¶38

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI P. NARAHARI BABU

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT

¶40

AND CHILD WELFARE

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR STAMPS AND

¶42

REGISTRATION ^

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent No.5:SMT. T. V. SRIDEVI

¶44

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

y

5^

APHC010075532025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶49

[3508]

¶50

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶51

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶52

PRESENT

¶53

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶54

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶55

WRIT APPEAL NO: 125/2025

¶56

Between;

¶57

Ramalakshmamma and Others

¶58

...APPELLANT{S)

¶59

AND

¶60

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶61

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶62

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶63

1.P NARAHARI BABU

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶65

1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE

¶66

2.TVSRI DEVI

¶67

The Court made the following Judgment; (perHon-tiesnjusticeR.Rag hunandanRao)

¶68

The appellant herein had gifted Ac.7.21 cents of land, in Chagaleru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District, to the 5th respondent herein, who is her son, by way of a registered deed of gift vide document No.817/1999, dated 21.07.1999. The 1®‘Appellant has a daughter, who is the 2'’'^ Appellant herein and two other sons.

¶69

2

¶70

The 5**^ respondent had subsequently filed O.S.No.97 of 2021 before the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, against his two brothers and sisters for an injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over the said land. It appears that a temporary injunction, dated 08.07.2021 in i.A.No.220 of 2021 in O.S.No.97 of 2021 was also granted and the suit is pending.

¶71

The 1®* appellant, had approached the 2"^^ respondent herein, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, [for short “the Act, 2007”] for a declaration that the deed of gift executed by her in favour of the 5*^ respondent should be cancelled as he was not looking after her.

¶72

The 5*^ respondent, after receipt of notice of this petition, had filed his response stating that he was taking good care of the Appellant, who is his mother and that the said complaint was filed due to undue pressure from the brothers and sisters of the 5'^ respondent, who are the children of the 1®‘ appellant. The 5*^ respondent also took the stand that the application was not maintainable in view of the fact that the document had been registered even prior to the Act coming into force and further that the necessary statements in the gift deed that it was been transferred with the condition that the 5*^ respondent would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the 1®‘ appellant are not available in the deed of gift.

¶73

The 2 nd respondent passed an Order, dated 13.09.2021, declaring the registered gift deed executed by the 1®‘ appellant in favour of the

¶74

'V

¶75

3

¶76

consequential direction to the S'"* respondent5*'^ respondent as void with a District Registrar, Anantapur to cancel the said document.

¶77

/ ■'

¶78

said Order, dated 13.09.2021 the 5 6. Aggrieved by the of W.P.No.17356 of 2022. respondent approached this Court by way Court, after hearing both sides, by Judgment A Learned Single Judge of this of the Writ Petition setting aside the Order of dated 12.12.2024, had disposed nd to the 1®^ appellant to the 2 respondent. However, liberty was given if she intends to cancel the deed of gift. approach the appropriate forum 7. The Learned Single Judge took the view that Section^23ofthe Act, 2007 would be applicable only where the gift deed^{wasexecutedafterthe} condition that the transferee would provide commencement of the Act with a the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. The Learned of the Act, 2007 would not be Single Judge had held that the provisions applicable as neither condition had been satisfied.

¶79

the said Order of the Learned Single Judge, the 8. Aggrieved by appellants have approached this Court by way of the^{presentWrit Appeal.} 9. Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the^appellants and Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the 5^^^respondent, learned counsel for the appellants 10. Sri P. Narahari Babu contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,^{initsJudgmentdated} 02.01.2025, in Civil Appeal No.10927 of 2024, in similar^{circumstancesupheld} the cancellation of the gift deed and had in fact quashed^{thegiftdeed.He}

¶80

4

¶81

would submit that the said Judgment would apply to the facts of the present case also.

¶82

In the Judgment cited by Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the appellants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India noticed that the transferee in the said case had executed a promissory note assuring the transferor that he would serve her and her husband during their lifetime and that the deed of gift can taken back if he fails to fulfill such an obligation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also noticed that the deed of gift itself containing such a condition. On the basis of these facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reversed the view of the Division Bench of the High Court that exact compliance of the requirements of the Act had not been made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also took the view that the Act is a beneficial legislation and the interpretation of the Act should be to advance the objective of the Act had not take a hyper technical view.

¶83

This Court is bound by the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. However, it would have to be seen if the facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶84

Section 23 of the Act, 2007 reads as follows;-

¶85

Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances:— (1) Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred by way of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the condition that the transferee shali 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^bedeemed

¶86

5

¶87

to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and shall at the option of the transferor^bedeclared void by the Tribunal.

¶88

(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.

¶89

(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing^{therightsunder} sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his^behalfby any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub section (1) of section 5.”

¶90

]

¶91

The provisions of Section 23 of the Act, 2007 would^beapplicable where the deed, which is sought to be cancelled, has^{beenexecutedafterthe} Act came into force and the deed, that is sought to^{becancelled,containsa} condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and^{basicphysical} needs to the transferor and the document can be cancelled if the transferor refuses or fails to provide such basic amenities and basic^physical needs.^In the present case, the deed, which is sought to be cancelled,^wasexecuted prior to the enactment coming into force. Secondly,^{thedeedofgiftdoesnot} contain the stipulation required under Section 23 of^the Act, 2007. Both conditions had been fulfilled in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while neither condition has been complied in the present^case.

¶92

On the question of whether the 5^'^ respondent has^beentaking care of the appellant, it is the case of the appellant^{thatheisnottaking} care of her, while the 5*'^ respondent states that he was always taking care of the appellant and he is willing to take care of her^{eventoday.Hestatesthat} the entire episode is because of the jealousy of his^siblings who^aretryingto take over the land which had been gifted to him by the appellant. These

¶93

6

¶94

are questions of fact which cannot be decided by this Court in a Writ Petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.

¶95

In the circumstances we do not find any reasons to interfere with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge and accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed affirming the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶96

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶97

closed.

¶98

Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶99

//TRUE COPY//

¶100

SECTION OFFICER

¶101

To,