Chirumamilla Nagarani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN, DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR

¶12

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , GURAZALA, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, KARAMPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, , STANIPS AND REGISTRATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶14

THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, GURAZALA, GUNTUR DISTSRICT

¶15

CHIRUMAMILLA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE PEDA VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O OPPICHERLA VILLAGE, KAREMPUDI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction, order or

¶18

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶19

2

¶20

orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in its order dated 18-01-2020 and quash the same and consequently declare the action of the 6th Respondent in registering unilateral cancellation of gift deed under document no 977/2020 dated 28/01/2020 executed by the 7th Respondent at the instance of 3'd Respondent as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the registration of document no 977/2020 dated 28/01/2020 executed by the 7th Respondent registered before 6th respondent and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order passed on 18-01-2020 by the 3rd respondent /Revenue Divisional officer Gurazala and pass

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent not to entertain any mutation in the name of the 7th respondent pertaining to Ac 9.69 cents of land situated in D.Nos. 249-B, 250-B, 253-Al and 269-D of Oppicherla Village, Karampudi • Mandal, Guntur District basing on the strength of illegal Orders of 3'' respondent and the void document entertain by the 6th respondent pending final disposal of the main writ petition and to pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶26

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 grant leave to the petitioner Herein /respondent No.6 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass

¶27

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶28

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 may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner herein/ Respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition No.

¶29

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶30

3

¶31

5668 of 2020 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

1.VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶36

2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)

¶37

3.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP)

¶38

4.M V SUBBA REDDY

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶41

4

¶42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶43

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 5668/2020

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶47

“to issue a writ, direction, order or orders more particulars one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of 3^rd respondent in its Order, dated 18.01.2020 and quash the same and consequently declare the action of 6^th respondent in registering unilateral cancellation of Gift Deed under Document No.977/2020, dated 28.01.2020 executed by 7^th respondent at the instance of 3^rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set-aside the registration of Document No.977/2020, dated 28.01.2020 executed by 7^th respondent registered before 6^th respondent.”

¶48

Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, are that, one late Peda Venkaiah and 7^th respondent are wife and husband, and he was the senior paternal uncle of petitioner; that they were not blessed with children out of their wedlock; that the husband of 7^th respondent and father of petitioner acquired several ancestral properties; that subsequent to death of Peda Venkaiah, all the ancestral properties that fell to the share of deceased Peda Venkaiah were devolved on 7^th respondent as 7^th respondent has

¶49

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶50

5

¶51

no children, petitioner has been looking after her care and welfare, since the demise of her husband.

¶52

(b) Respondent No.7 executed a Registered Gift Deed vide Document No.2214/2018, dated 14.05.2018 in favour of petitioner, conveying an extent of Ac.9.69 cents situated in different door numbers of Oppicherla village, Karampudi Mandal, Guntur District and it was incorporated therein that the possession of the schedule property was delivered to the petitioner on the date of execution of the said Gift Deed and the name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue records.

¶53

(c) When the petitioner went to USA to pursue her employment, and in her absence, petitioner’s father was taking care of all the needs of 7^th respondent, but, with the active illinfluence of somebody, 7^th respondent filed an application before 3^rd respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for brevity ‘the Act, 2007’) alleging that she conveyed an extent of Ac.9.69 cents in favour of petitioner, with a belief that the petitioner would look after her welfare in her old age, but, as she failed to see her welfare and kept her alone, 7^th respondent sought for cancellation of Registered Gift Deed vide Document No.2214/2018, dated 14.05.2018, but in

¶54

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶55

6

¶56

the said application, petitioner could not file counter; that the notices got issued by 7^th respondent to the petitioner in the said application, were not at all served on the petitioner and fraudulent endorsement was obtained and got returned the said notices; that the petitioner was not given fair opportunity to dispute the allegation made by 7^th respondent and that, the proceeding initiated by 3^rd respondent in conducting inquiry, was not in accordance with Section 5 (3) of the Act, 2007.

¶57

(d) 3^rd respondent vide Order, dated 18.01.2020 cancelled the Registered Gift Deed No.2214/2018, dated 14.05.2018 and the said order is beyond the ambit of Section 23 (1) of the Act, 2007, as it was passed on the ground that the petitioner did not look after the welfare of 7^th respondent; that even though there is no such condition in the Registered Gift Deed, the petitioner was discharging her obligation; that 7^th respondent could not establish the failure of petitioner in providing any sort of amenities and as such, the finding of 7^th respondent in cancelling impugned document, is untenable. Subsequent to passing of impugned Order, 7^th respondent approached 6^th respondent and executed Revocation Deed vide Document No.977/2020, dated 28.01.2020 to the Registered Gift Deed vide Document No.2214/2018, dated

¶58

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶59

7

¶60

14.05.2018; that in the said impugned Deed, 7^th respondent contradicted her own intention that though she executed Registered Gift Deed in favour of petitioner, 7^th respondent was in possession of the said property and 6^th respondent ought not to have entertained the execution of Revocation Deed, as he had no jurisdiction to enforce the orders made by 3^rd respondent.

¶61

(e) Pursuant to the execution of Revocation Deed, 7^th respondent was making hectic efforts to mutate her name in revenue records and to secure Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in her name by approaching 4^th respondent; that there is every possibility that 4^th respondent, under the misconception of law, would entertain the representation of 7^th respondent for carrying out her name in revenue records by deleting the name of petitioner in respect of the schedule property; that there is every necessity to direct 4^th respondent not to entertain any mutation in the name of 7^th respondent pertaining to schedule property. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶62

Respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit, denying the contents of the Writ Petition and inter alia contended that 7^th respondent made application before 3^rd respondent seeking for cancellation of Registered Gift Deed executed in favour of

¶63

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶64

8

¶65

petitioner, as she had not looked after the welfare of 7^th respondent and requested to return the schedule property to 7^th respondent; that 3^rd respondent issued notices to petitioner and also 7^th respondent with a direction to attend for inquiry and after conducting inquiry, 3^rd respondent vide Order, dated 18.01.2020, directed 6^th respondent to cancel the document No.2214/2018, dated 14.05.2018 and pursuant to the said order, 6^th respondent cancelled the said document by way of Revocation Deed through Registered Document No.977/2020, dated 28.01.2020 and it is in accordance with law.

¶66

(b) Respondent No.7 executed Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018 in favour of petitioner, by transferring her ancestral property i.e. Ac.9.69 cents, on the pretext that the petitioner would look after her during her old age, but she left USA for employment, leaving 7^th respondent subsequently and did not look after her welfare and as such, 7^th respondent filed application under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 2007 seeking for cancellation of Registered Gift Deed Document No.2214/2018, dated 14.05.2018; that on perusal of entire material on record, 3^rd respondent concluded in its Order, dated 18.01.2020 directing 6^th respondent to cancel the registered document executed by 7^th respondent in

¶67

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶68

9

¶69

favour of petitioner. In reply to the notice, dated 02.11.2019, petitioner’s uncle viz. Unnam Venkateswarlu, who was witness to the Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018, close associate of petitioner’s family, informed the same to her, who in turn made telephone to AO and discussed the matter, which clearly establishes that she had full knowledge of the proceedings before 3^rd respondent, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that she was unaware of the proceedings. The statements of one Panguluri Subbaiah and Bandari Kiran Kumar disclose that petitioner was not taking proper care of 7^th respondent and not providing basic needs. Therefore, the petitioner violated Section 23 (1) of the Act, 2007 and as such, pursuant to the order passed by 3^rd respondent, 6^th respondent took necessary steps for cancellation of Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018 by way of Revocation Deed, dated 28.01.2020 executed by 7^th respondent. The action of 3^rd respondent in issuing orders to cancel the gift deed, executed by 7^th respondent, by directing 6^th respondent, is in accordance with law. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶70

Respondent No.6 filed counter denying the contents of the Writ Petition. It is conceded that she executed Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018 bearing Document No.2214 of 2018 in

¶71

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶72

10

¶73

favour of petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner went to USA without informing her and did not look after her welfare and as such, she filed petition under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 2007 before 3^rd respondent and after inquiry, got order in her favour to revoke the said gift deed and as such, she got executed Revocation Deed, dated 28.01.2020 by revoking the Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018 under Section 23 of the Act, 2007.

¶74

(b) In view of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide Memo Rc.No.G1/10547/2008, dated 18.07.2008, and the Order, dated 18.01.2020 passed by 3^rd respondent, the Revocation Deed, dated 28.01.2020 got registered by 7^th respondent is in accordance with law and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of revocation, she can approach the competent authority or Civil Court. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶75

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Woman and Child Welfare representing respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.2 to 4, learned Government Stamps and Registration representing respondent Nos.5 and 6 and learned

¶76

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶77

11

¶78

counsel for respondent No.7 and perused the entire material available on record.

¶79

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Order, dated 18.01.2020 passed by 3^rd respondent, canceling the Registered Gift Deed bearing Document No.2214/2018, dated 14.05.2018 is untenable and beyond the ambit of Section 23 (1) of the Act, 2007, as it was held that the petitioner did not look after the welfare of 7^th respondent, whereas, in the Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018, there is no such condition and 7^th respondent too failed to establish that she was not provided any sort of amenities. It is his submission that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to deny the allegation made by 7^th respondent and that, the proceeding initiated by 3^rd respondent in conducting inquiry, was not in accordance with Section 5 (3) of the Act, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that in the absence of petitioner, her father was taking care of all the needs of 7^th respondent and in such event, application filed by 7^th respondent before 3^rd respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 2007 is not maintainable.

¶80

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that pursuant to the execution of Revocation Deed bearing

¶81

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶82

12

¶83

Document No.977/2020, dated 28.01.2020, 7^th respondent was making hectic efforts to mutate her name in revenue records and to secure Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in her name by approaching 4^th respondent and there is every necessity to direct 4^th respondent not to entertain any mutation in the name of 7^th respondent pertaining to schedule property.

¶84

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent No.3 would contend that pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Act, 2007, 3^rd respondent issued notices to petitioner and also 7^th respondent with a direction to attend for inquiry; that from the reply to the notice, dated 02.11.2019, it is clear that petitioner got knowledge about the proceedings before 3^rd respondent, and she cannot claim that she was unaware of the proceedings and after conducting inquiry, 3^rd respondent vide Order, dated 18.01.2020, directed 6^th respondent to cancel the Registered Gift Deed document No.2214/2018, dated 14.05.2018 and pursuant to the said order, 6^th respondent cancelled the said document by way of Revocation Deed through Registered Document No.977/2020, dated 28.01.2020 and it is in accordance with law. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the statements of one Panguluri Subbaiah and

¶85

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶86

13

¶87

Bandari Kiran Kumar disclose that petitioner violated Section 23 (1) of the Act, 2007 by not taking proper care of 7^th respondent and not providing basic needs to her.

¶88

Learned counsel for respondent No.7 would contend that the petitioner went to USA without informing her and did not look after her welfare and that made her to file petition under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 2007 before 3^rd respondent. It is further contended that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by 3^rd respondent, she can approach the competent authority or Civil Court seeking to set-aside, but not entitled to file Writ Petition.

¶89

A perusal of material on record goes to show that as per the version of petitioner and 7^th respondent, 7^th respondent and her husband viz. Peda Venkaiah were issueless. Further, as per the version of petitioner, subsequent to demise of her husband, petitioner looked after the care and welfare of 7^th respondent and having been satisfied with the attitude, conduct and concern shown by the petitioner in taking care of 7^th respondent, 7^th respondent executed Registered Gift Deed on 14.05.2018 in favour of petitioner bearing Document No.2214/2018, conveying an extent of Ac.9.69 cents situated in Oppicherla village, Karampudi Mandal of Guntur District.

¶90

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶91

14

¶92

A perusal of material on record further goes to show

¶93

that the cause of action arose, when the petitioner went to USA for her employment and during her absence in India, when no one took care of 7^th respondent, who being a senior citizen, made an application before 3^rd respondent, under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 2007 seeking to cancel the Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018 executed by 7^th respondent in favour of petitioner. Vide Order, dated 18.01.2020, 3^rd respondent cancelled the Gift Deed, holding that the petitioner did not comply the mandatory provision under Section 23 (1) of the Act, 2007 as she was not looking after the welfare of 7^th respondent and settled elsewhere. Pursuant to the said Order, dated 18.01.2020, 7^th respondent got executed Revocation Deed on 28.01.2020.

¶94

Section 4 of the Act, 2007 prescribes Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens. Section 4 (1) of the Act, 2007 reads as thus:

¶95

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 –

¶96

i. parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor;

¶97

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶98

15

¶99

ii. a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of section 2

¶100

A plain reading of Section 4 of the Act, 2007 goes to show that the said proviso gives senior citizens a formal and swift legal avenue to seek maintenance if they face neglect or abandonment, and the proceedings before a Maintenance Tribunal are designed to be summary and expeditious. Under the said proviso, a childless senior citizen can claim maintenance from a relative who has sufficient means, especially if that relative is in possession of, or will inherit, the senior citizen's property.

¶101

Apparently, 7^th respondent is a childless senior citizen, who, with a fond hope, executed Registered Gift Deed on 14.08.2018 in favour of petitioner, who is daughter of her husband’s younger brother, conveying title and possession over Ac.9.69 cents of immovable property and when the petitioner left to USA, 7^th respondent, who is a senior citizen and hapless widow, being abandoned by petitioner and her family, her welfare was left to wind. A perusal of recitals of Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.08.2018 goes to show that as 7^th respondent was not having children and the petitioner was the only legal heir to her and she

¶102

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶103

16

¶104

executed the Gift Deed out of love and affection and she was not expecting any benefit from the petitioner and gave it to the petitioner at free of cost (మా దంపతులకు ఎటువంటి పుత్ర మరియు పుత్ ర క (puthrika) సంతానము కలిగి యుండలేదు. అందువలన నీవు నాకు ఏకైక వారసురాలవు అయినందున నీ యందు నాకు గల ప్రేమాతిశయం (premaathisayam) వలన, ప్రేమయే (premaye) త్పతిఫలమని ఎంచి శూనయముగా ఉచిరంగా కంర ఆస్తిని చందచేయరలంచి, ఈ రోజున ఈ దిగువ షెడ్ య ల్ దాఖలా నా పూర ీ కుల వలన సంపాదించబడి ...... Ac.9.69 cents భూమిని ఉచిరముగా నీకు దఖలు పరచడమైనది)

¶105

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the transfer of immovable schedule property was not made by 7^th respondent in favour of petitioner under Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018 on the condition that the petitioner shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to 7^th respondent, and in the absence of such condition in the Gift Deed, the transfer of schedule property in favour of petitioner under Registered Gift Deed shall not be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence, therefore, respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to cancel the Registered Gift Deed executed by 7^th respondent under Section 23 of the Act, 2007. Learned counsel placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Sudesh Chhikara v.

¶106

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶107

17

¶108

Ramti Devi and another¹ the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: (Paragraph Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15)

¶109

“12. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all kinds of transfers as is clear from the use of the expression “by way of gift or otherwise”. For attracting sub-section (1) of Section 23, the following two conditions must be fulfilled:

¶110

a. 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; and

¶111

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

¶112

13. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion of undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.

¶113

14. 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 expression 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.

¶114

15. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by respondent no.1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the

¶115

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684.

¶116

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶117

18

¶118

release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of respondent No.1) would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to respondent no.1. Even in the impugned order dated 22^nd May 2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petitioner was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by respondent No.1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition.”

¶119

In Nitin Rajendra Gupta; Hemant Rajendra Gupta;

¶120

Rajendra Keshardeo Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and

¶121

others² , the High Court of Bombay held thus:

¶122

“Therefore, Section 23 is referable as a conduct of the transferee prior to and after execution of the Deed of Gift or Settlement, as the case may be. For all purposes, Section 23 is to be understood taking note of the conduct of the transferee and not with reference to the specific stipulation of condition in the Deed of Gift or Settlement.”

¶123

In Ms. Shriya Uppati v. The State of Telangana and

¶124

others³ , the High Court of Telangana held thus: (Paragraph No.13)

¶125

2 2024 LawSuit (Bom) 644.

¶126

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶127

19

¶128

“13. A careful perusal of Section 23 of the Act, 2007 makes it clear that for invoking Section 23, the following prerequisites have to be fulfilled i.e. 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; and 2) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor. If both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence. Such a transfer then becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.”

¶129

In Nandkishor Shivdin Sahu and another v. Sanjeevani Naresh Patil and others⁴ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: (Paragraph Nos.14 and 15)

¶130

“14. …. This Court, therefore, finds substance in the contention of the petitioners, that this application is filed under Section 23 of the Act in order to seek cancellation of the gift bypassing the procedure of adjudication for such declaration before the competent Civil Court, which is wholly impermissible in law. If such circumvention of the due procedure for challenging validity of any document is allowed, the same will lead to injustice, as without adjudication of such issue of challenge to the document, same would stand cancelled.

¶131

15. It is, therefore, held that dispute with regard to validity of execution of document cannot be gone into in the proceeding under Section 23 even indirectly/incidentally and that

¶132

3 Writ Petition Nos.30597 and 30669 of 2022, D/d. 04.03.2025 on the file of the Telangana High Court.

¶133

4 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2920.

¶134

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶135

20

¶136

this proceeding can never be allowed to become an alternative/bypass to the challenge of validity of document before a Civil Court…”

¶137

In S.Karuppiah v. The District Collector, Theni

¶138

District⁵ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: (Paragraph No.12)

¶139

“12. Even though the settlement deed in question does not contain an express clause mandating maintenance of the Settlor, such an obligation is implied, particularly, in the case of a settlement deed, as oppose to a gift deed. This view has been affirmed by this Court in T.Pandiselvi v. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Usilampatti, Madurai and others (2025:MHC:2038) , after considering various decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as conflicting view from different Benches of this Court. It was categorically held therein that an obligation to maintain the Settlor is implicit in a settlement deed, unlike in a gift deed, where such an inference can only be drawn if it is expressly stated.”

¶140

Learned counsel further relied upon a decision made

¶141

in P.Rohit Saurya v. The State of Telangana⁶ , the High Court of

¶142

Telangana held thus: (Paragraph No.10)

¶143

“10. ….The relief sought in the writ petition pertains to the cancellation of the registered gift deeds, and the question that fell for consideration is whether the matter attracts the provisions of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and the Respondent No.3 had jurisdiction to cancel the gift deeds executed by the Senior

¶144

5 2025 Supreme (OnLine) Mad) 66437.

¶145

6 Writ Petition No.30278 of 2023, D/d. 08.04.2025 on the file of the High Court of Telangana.

¶146

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶147

21

¶148

Citizen. In the opinion of this Court, since the requirements under Section 23 (1) of the Act are not satisfied, and as Respondent No.4 has passed away, his legal heirs do not have the right to contest the matter under the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act.”

¶149

In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixt and Ors.⁷ ,

¶150

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: (Paragraph No.25)

¶151

“25. 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 maintenance by the transferee.”

¶152

A perusal of the above decisions goes to show that 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, such transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. But, in the petition on hand, 7^th respondent, who is childless widow, subsequent to demise of her husband, was taken care of her welfare by the petitioner and out of

¶153

7 Civil Appeal No.10927 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.720 of 2023). D/d. 02.01.2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶154

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶155

22

¶156

such love and affection, as she being the daughter of 7^th respondent’s husband’s brother, she executed Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018 in favour of petitioner. In that pretext, incorporating a condition of looking after 7^th respondent is not mandatory to attach to it. Indeed, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expression in return, which is clearly mentioned in the said Gift Deed. In the facts and circumstances of the case of the present petition, an express written condition is not always necessary, indeed, expectation of care can be inferred from the circumstances behind the transfer.

¶157

Section 23 of the Act, 2007 deals with Transfer of

¶158

property to be void in certain circumstances. It reads as under:

¶159

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.

¶160

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶161

23

¶162

In the petition on hand, petitioner went to USA for her employment leaving 7^th respondent to her fate.

¶163

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondent No.3 did not follow the procedure by issuing notices to the petitioner and unilaterally passed orders. Learned counsel relied upon a decision in Ms. Shriya Uppati case (3^rd supra), wherein the High Court of Telangana held thus: (Paragraph No.17)

¶164

17. The respondent No.3, being a quasi-judicial authority, ought to have followed the procedure and issued notices to the affected/interested persons before entertaining the petition filed by respondent No.4. However, the record indicates that no such notices were issued to the petitioners, who were majors and in whose favour registered gift deeds had been executed, and against whom no allegations were made…”

¶165

During pendency of the proceedings before 3^rd respondent, notice was served to one Unnam Venkateswarlu, who acted as witness/attestor to Registered Gift Deed, dated 14.05.2018 and who is none other than the brother of petitioner’s mother, for his appearance. If at all the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings before 3^rd respondent, the said Unnam Venkateswarlu, who is none other than the brother of petitioner’s mother, soon after receipt of notice from 3^rd respondent, might have informed about the application made by 7^th respondent and

¶166

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶167

24

¶168

pendency of proceedings before 3^rd respondent even at least to the father of petitioner. It is not the case of petitioner that her father also accompanied her to USA. If such is the case, the father of petitioner might have appeared in the proceedings pending before 3^rd respondent, admittedly, it was not done so. On the other hand, it is the contention of respondent No.7 that petitioner went to USA without intimation to 7^th respondent and she left India along with her parents. To support the same, respondent No.3, in his counteraffidavit filed the copy of statements of one Panguluri Subbaiah and one Bandaru Kiran Kumar, recorded during the pendency of proceedings before 3^rd respondent, wherein, they stated that 7^th respondent and her husband resided jointly with the father of petitioner and subsequent to death of husband of 7^th respondent, she got registered the schedule property in favour of petitioner and subsequent to the said registration, petitioner did not look after the welfare of 7^th respondent. Therefore, it can be inferred that petitioner is well aware of the fact that no one would look after the welfare of 7^th respondent during her absence in India, as her parents also accompanied with her to USA. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it can be inferred that 7^th respondent parts with the schedule property by executing Registered Gift Deed in favour of

¶169

SRK, J W.P.No.5668 of 2020

¶170

25

¶171

petitioner out of love and affection with a hope that she would look after her welfare during her old age and such transfer was made out of love and affection without any expression in return. Therefore, the Revocation Deed, dated 28.01.2020 bearing Document No.977 of 2020 executed by 7^th respondent in respect of schedule property pursuant to the Order, dated 18.01.2020 passed by 3^rd respondent, holds good. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and it is deserved to be dismissed.

¶172

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶173

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.

¶174

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶175

15^th October, 2025.

¶176

DNB

Chirumamilla Nagarani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chirumamilla Nagarani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katam Jaya Prakash Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanthala Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

The Ex Hill Zamindar and Mokasadars Samkeshema Sangam Vs the Principal Secretary

Datla Srinivasa Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunja Ramudu, Vs the State of Ap

Kunja Ramudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh