Mendu Narsimha Reddy Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Mendu Narsimha Reddy Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of at admission stage with directions enhancing the lump sum amount to Rs.25,00,000/- each to the petitioners, payable by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in three equal installments within six months, in addition to the amount already deposited as ordered by the Appellate Authority; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the gift deeds executed by the petitioners in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 are liable to be cancelled/declared void under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. +1 more

Court's answer

For invoking Section 23 of the Act, two pre-requisites must be fulfilled: (i) the transfer must have been made subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and (ii) the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs. If both conditions are satisfied, by a legal fiction the transfer is deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence, becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor, and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer void.

Ratio / Principle

A reading of the recitals in the gift deeds executed by the petitioners clinchingly establishes that no conditions whatsoever were attached to the transfer of property; therefore the requirements of Section 23 are not attracted and the gift deeds cannot be cancelled/declared void, the issue being no longer res integra in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Sadesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Detti and another.

Key takeaways

As per the findings of the Appellate Authority, the transferees (children of the senior citizens) have disposed of the property acquired through the gift deeds; declaring the gift deeds void at this length of time would disturb the settled position and the interest created in favour of third parties.ratio¶60
Since respondent Nos.4 to 9 did not file any counter affidavit despite service of notice, ends of justice would be met by enhancing the lump sum amount granted by the Appellate Authority to Rs.25,00,000/- each to the petitioners, payable by respondent Nos.4 and 5, who shall deposit the enhanced amount in three equal installments, in addition to the amount already deposited as ordered by the Appellate Authority, within a period of six months.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23 - Cancellation of gift deeds by senior citizens - Two pre-requisites must co-exist: the transfer must have been made subject to a condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, and the transferee must refuse or fail to provide them; only then does the legal fiction arise deeming the transfer to have been made by fraud, coercion or undue influence, making it voidable at the instance of the transferor before the Maintenance Tribunal. Gift deeds containing no such condition cannot be declared void, following the Supreme Court's decision in Sadesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Detti and another. Where the donees have already disposed of the gifted property, declaring the gift void would disturb the settled position and third-party interests. Held: ends of justice met by enhancing the lump sum maintenance to Rs.25,00,000/- each to the petitioners, payable by respondent Nos.4 and 5 (sons) in three equal installments within six months, in addition to the amount already deposited; writ petition disposed of, no costs.

I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[^32s6 ]

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO:^'14738 OF 2023

Between:

'1 . Mendu Narsimha Reddy, S/o Late Ram Chandra Reddy, Aged 78 years, Occ. Nil.

Smt. Mendu Premalatha, W/o Narsimha Reddy,^{Aged 68 years,Occ. Nit'} Both are R/o H.No.8-1-1061N7, Vinobha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONERS

AND

'1. State 9f Teiangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department Revenue, $ecretariat^{Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad}

The District Collectbr-cum-Appellate Authority, Under^Welfare of Parents^and Senior Citizens Act, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District at Bhongir.

fhe Reyenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Tribunal,^Under Welfare qf Parents and Senior Citizenq Act, Bhongir Division, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

Mendu Venugopal Reddy, Slq Narsimha Reddy, Aged 53^years, Occ. Business, R/o Basanthapur village, Rajapet^{[Vlandal,Yadadri-Bhqvanagiri} District-508105.

Mendu Mahipal Rqddy, S/o Narsimha Reddy, Aged 43^ygars, Ocp.^Businees, R/o^{Basanthapurvillage,} Rajapet^{Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuva0agiri} Qigtrict508105.

6 Smt.M,Madhavi, Wo Ramachandra Reddy,^{D/o Mendu} Narsimha^Reddy, Aged 40 years, Oc-e. Housewife, R/o Athapur, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad500048

Smt. Pinnapureddy Surekha, Wo Pinnapureddy Mallikarjun.^D/o Mendu Narsimha Reddy,-Aged 37^years,Occ. Housewife,^R/o H.No.9-1-1161201518, Boad No.2,^{AnjiniNagar., Boduppal, MgdipallyMaQdal,Medchal-Malkajgiri} Dlstricl500039

B. Smt.Mendu Saritha, Wo Mahipal Reddy, Aged^{38 years,Occ Agriculture,} [/o^{H.No.1 -28, BasBnthapur village, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri} District-508105

9 Smt.Mendu l=akshmi @ Lakshmi Prasanna, Wo^{Prabhakar Reddy, Aged 52} ygars, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-27, Basanthapur village, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District-S081 05

'l 0. The Sub-Registrai, Bhongir, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri Districl5O81 16.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumsiances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,} the^{High Court maybe}

pleased to issue a u/rit, order or direction more^{particularly one in the nature of} Writ of Certiorari call^for the^{recordsand quash the Orders, datednil-06-2019} passed in Case No G/190/2018 by the Respondent^{No.3-RDO/Tribunalunder} Senior Citizens Act,^{whichwere modified in AppealCase No.C/164312019by} order dated 06- 09-2019^passed by the^{Respondent No.2-District} collector/Appellate^-trrbunal and the^{consequentialMemo styledas Notice} No.C/1643/2019, dated 09-02-2023,^{in so far as not grantingthe relief as claimed} by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary^{to the provisions of The} Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Qitizelp^{Act, 2007 and violalive} of Articles 14,21 anfl 300-,4 of the Cpnstituliqn^of lndia^{and violative of principles} of natural^justice ancl consequently allow^{the Casg No.9/19Q12018On the file of} the Respondent No.3-^RDO/Tribundl under Senior^CitizensAct.

lA NO:'l oF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying tha!^{in thg circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,} the^Fligh Cou(^{may be pleasedto} dispenEe with the filins o{ the^{pertifiedcopies} of Order, dated^{nil-OQ:?o19pa€Fed} in Case No.G/190/20'18 by^{thq Respondeni} Ng.3-RDO^{and alsothe orderdate-d} 06-09-2019 passed n Appeal Case No.C/l64312019^{by the RespondentN92-} District Collector.

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under^{Seqtion 151 CPQ praying thatin thg circumstancesstated in} the affidavit{iled in support of the^petition, thd High^{Coqfimay be pleased to direct} the Re'spondent No 10 not to^{register any} documenl il^{rerFIlgc]of the lands} bearing'Sy.Nq.27lA4,^admeasurin$ Ac.0-3.7^{guntas, Sy.No.28/AA} Bdmeasqrirlg Ac.0-36 guntas, Sy No 30 admeasuring AC.^{l:28 guntas, Sy.No35 qdmeasuring} Ac.2-09 guntas. Sy.No 36/44 admeasuring Ac.1-21^{guntas totaladmeasuring} Ac7-11 guntas situated at Basanthapur Bevenue^{Village, Raiapet} Mandal, Yadad ri-Bhuva nag irr Drstrict^(Erstwhile Nalgonda^{District), pending disposalof the} writ petition.

gounsef foq the Petitioners: SRI PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA Couns6l for tlre Respondent Nos.1 TO^{3 &} 10:^{GP FOR} BEVENUE Counse! for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 9:^-':

The Caurt made the following: ORDER

)

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1473A oF 2023

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

'...to issue a Wit, Order or direction npre^{porttanlarlg one in the natureof} 'Wit of Certiorqi'^call for the^{re<nrdsand quqshth.eOrders, dated nil'06'} 2019 passed in Cdse No.G/19O/2o18 bA the^{RespondentNo.3'} RDO/ Trtbunal under Senior Citizens Act, whbh were modtfted in Appeat Co-se No.C/1643/2O19 bg order dated 06.09.2019^passed bg^the Respondent No.2-Distict Collector/ Appellate Tribunal and^the consequential Memo stgted as Notice No.C/ 1643/2019,^{doted" O9.O2.2023,} in so far as not gronting the retief as claimed bg the^{petittoners,as illegal,} arbitrqrg, contrary to the^provisiotts of^{The Maintenance} and^Welfareof Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and uiotatiue^{of pinctplesof natural} justtce and consequentlg atlow the Cose No.G/ 190,/2OlB on the rtle of the Respondent N1.3-RDO/ Tibunal under Senior Citizens^{Act andpass such} oth.er ord.er or orders as lhis Hon'ble Court maA^d"eem frt^{and proper in the'} cira nLstances of the ca-se" .

It is stated that the petitioners herein are the^{seniorcitizens} and parents of respondent Nos.4 to 9. It^{is furtherstated that the} petitioners made a complaint under the provisions of^the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents ald^{Senior Citizens Act, 2OO7} (for short "the Act") before respondent No.3 i.e., the^Revenue Divisiona,l Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Tribunal^allegingthat respondents No.4 to 9 i.e., children of the^{petitioners failed to} maintain them by providing basic^necessities and^{also not} attending any medical emergencies. It is^{further stated that} respondent No.3, after conducting^{enquiry and after hearing the} petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 to 9,^{has passedan order} vide proceedings No.G/ 190/2018, dated Ni1.O6.2O19^granting

2

CVBR, J w_t4738-023

,; ce of Rs.10,OO0/- to the^{petitionersbesides the medica-l} for an amount of Rs.2,0O,O00/-.^{Aggrieved by the said} ordeI D, the petitioners filed an^{appealon the file of respondent} No.2, who in turn, in^{order to resolve tt.e interse disputes between} the parties, has^{granted lumpsum amountof Rs.15,0O,O00/- each,} totaling Rs.30,00,000/- to the^{petitioners,vide order dated} 06.09.2019 in Proceedings^{No.C/ 1643/2019. Aggrievedby the} said orders, the^{petitionersfrledthis writ petition.}

Considerecl the submissions of the^{leamed counselfor the} parties and with their consent this writ^{petition is disposedof at} the admission stage. Despite^{service of notice on respondentNos.4} to 9, ttrere is no representation^{nor any counter affidavit is filed on} their behalf.

Sri Peddakula Papaiah, learned^{counsel appearingfor the} petitioners vehemently contended that^{as per Section23 of the Act,} after commencement^of the^{Act, if any property stands in the name} of the senior citizens is^{transferredby way of a gift or otherwise} and when the children/transferees^{fail to provide basicamenities} to the transferor, the transferred^{property under the gift shallbe} dcemed to have been made by fraud or^{coercionor undue influence} upon the tralsferor and shall at the^{optionof the transferorbe}

J

CVBR, J w_14738_2023

declared void by the Tribunal; and since, in the^present case, taking advantage of the execution of gift deeds in favour^of respondent Nos.4 alrd 5, they neglected to maintain the^petitioners and not being satislied with the relief granted by the Special Tribunal and Appellate Authority, the^{petitioners prayedto cancel} the gift deed executed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

This Court has carefully examined the^gift deeds executed^by the petitioners in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. There^{is no} condition in the gift deeds that the transferee f donee shall^provide basic needs to the transferor/donor and failure to^provide such necessities by the transferee/donee the transfer of^propertymade in favour ofthe donee shall be deemed to be declared to be fraud^or coercion and liable for cancellation. The Senior Citizens^{Act was} enacted with a laudable object for providing maintenance^and welfare of senior citizens and parents taking into consideration the modern trends in the^joint family system and a large^{number of} elderly people are not being looked after by their family^membersin providing financial assistance and attending medical emergencies. This legislation empowers the Senior Citizens to^{cancelthe gift} deeds executed by them in favour of their^{children/nearrelatives} and declare such transactions as void.

4

CVBR, J w_t4738²⁰²³

It is apt to refer Section 23 of the Senior Citizens^{Act, which}

reads as follou s:

"23. Transfer of^propertg to be^{uoid in certaincircwmstances.-(1)} Where ang^.senior citi-z,en who, ofrer tle^{commencementof this Act,htts} transferred bg tuay of @ft or otherwise,^{his property, subiectto the} condition that the transferee shall^{prouide the basic amerdties and} basic phAsical needs to th.e trarsferor dnd^{such tran'sferee refuses or} fails^{to prouide such amenities andphysicalneeds,the said. transfer} of propertg shall be deemed to haue^beenmadeby frattd^{or coercionor} under undue influence and sLvr,ll at the option of tle^{trarLsferorbe} declared uoid bg the Tibunal.

(2) Wlere ang senior citizen has a right to receiue mdintenance out of an estate and such estate or^part tlereof is transferred,^{the ightto} receiue maintenarrce maA be enforced. against^{the transfereeif the} transferee hrrs notice of ttrc ight, or if the^{transfer is gratuitous; but} not agoinst the tra nsferee for ansideration and wittaut^{notice of igw.}

(3) If, ang senior citizen is incopable of enforcing the rights unrTer subsections⁽¹⁾ and^(2), action maA^be taken on^{his belnlfbg anA of tlte} organisatiort refened to in Explanation to^{sub-section(1) of section5.}

A careful perusal of above^provision makes it clear that^for invoking Section 23, tL,.e following^{pre-requisiteshaveto 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 afcresaid 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 th e instance of the transfcror and the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as void.

5

CVBR, J w_14738_2023

I ,

A reading of the recitals in the gift deeds executed by the petitioners would clinchingly establish that no conditions whatsoever attached to the Transfer of property have been mentioned. The issues raised in this writ petition are no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hontrle Supreme Court in Sadesh Chhikara us. Ramti Detti and anotherl, wherein it was observed as under:

When a senior citizen parts with his or her propertg bA exeo)ting a gifi or a release or otherutise in fauour of his or lpr near and. dear ones, a condition of looking afier th.e senior citizen is not necessailg attached to it. On the controry, uery ofie\ such transfers are mad.e ouj of loue and affectton uitltout ang expectation in retum. Therefore, uthen it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a tran-sfer, existence of such condittons must be established before the Tibunal.

Be that as it may, admittedly, in this case as per the {indings recorded by the Appellate Authority, the transferees i.e., the children of the senior citizens have disposed of the property acquired through gift deed executed by the petitioners. Therefore, at this length of time, if the gift deed executed by the petitioners is declared as void, it would amount to disturbing the settled position and interest created in favour of the third parties. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the property gifted to

' izozz;^{rz scrrzo}

6

CVBR, J w_14738²⁰²³

respondent^{Nos.4 and 5 is to an extent of Acs'7'11 gts'' and the} present prevailing market^{value is approximately 3 Crores worth'}

In view^{of the aboveand since respondent Nos'4 to 9' despite} service of notice,^{did not choose to file any counteraffrdavit} opposing the^{claim madeby the petitioners,this Court is of the} opinion that^{ends of justice would be met, if the lump sum amount} ganted by the Appellate^{Authority i'e', respondent No'2 herein is} further enhanced^{to Rs.25,00,000/-each to the petitioners payable} by respondent^{Nos.4 and 5, rvhoin turn shall deposit the enhanced} amount in three^{(3) equalinstallments,in additionto the amount} already deposited^{as orderedby thc AppellateAuthority' within a} period of six months^{from todaY'}

With the above^{directicns, the writ petition is disposedof'} No order as^{to costs.}

As a sequel, the^{miscellaneouspetitions, if any, pending in}

this writ^{petitronshall standclosed.}

SD/.M OHD. ISMAIL AS NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

TION OFFICER

To 1 . Principal Sec.retary Department Revenue, Secretariat Buildings' Saifabad' Hvdeiabad,^{litateof Telanqana}

2 rilIBti,.i"t ij"'irl1i"r_*r_Trppilate^{Authority, Under werfare of Parentsand} s."nio'itiiiruni^{nct, Yaaao ril6huvanagiriDistrict at Bhon g ir'}

3 ffi^{'R";;;; bi"i.'io"ir orii;;-;fi:sl6 bivisionar Tribu-nal,Under welfare} ;iFaiIn[ ;;io^{sunlor cit"ijni eE ehins:r Divisioil, Yadadri-Qhuvanasiri} District.

1. ih";' 5rO^{n"gistrar Bhongir,Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri DlStrict-5.0811 6'} 5 o"i, bC t"^{-shl PAPAIAFfPEDDAKULA, Advocate [oPUcl} b iil; dd.i"-oi^{ron nrveirlE,Fi,sh a;'n ior the! state br relansana'at} Hyderabad IOUT]

1. Two QD Copies

PSK.

\

t

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110112025

I

ORDER

WP.No.14738 of²⁰²³

'i ;, E sra
t,-j 24 tlAR 2025
.1.'
*
SFi...

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

@
eLl lb\I

Cite this judgement

Mendu Narsimha Reddy v. State of Telangana, WP/14738/2023 (TEL), decided on 21 January 2025.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Sadesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Detti and anotherRelied on¶58

Open Authorities

Statutes5

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Articles 14, 21 and 300-A
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 151
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 · Section 23

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Orders dated 11.06.2019 (printed 'Ni1.O6.2O19') in Case No.G/190/2018 passed by Respondent No.3-RDO/Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, as modified in Appeal Case No.C/1643/2019 by order dated 06.09.2019 of Respondent No.2-District Collector/Appellate Tribunal, together with the consequential Memo styled as Notice No.C/1643/2019 dated 09.02.2023, in so far as relief claimed by the petitioners was not granted.Respondent No.3-RDO/Sub-Divisional Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, as modified by Respondent No.2-District Collector/Appellate Tribunal · 06.09.2019
Petitioners, senior citizens and parents of respondent Nos.4 to 9, filed a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before respondent No.3 (RDO-cum-Sub-Divisional Tribunal) alleging their children failed to maintain them; after enquiry and hearing, respondent No.3 passed order in Proceedings No.G/190/2018 dated 11.06.2019 granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- besides medical expenses of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Petitioners appealed to respondent No.2 (District Collector/Appellate Authority), who, to resolve inter se disputes, granted lumpsum amount of Rs.15,00,000/- each, totaling Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioners, vide order dated 06.09.2019 in Proceedings No.C/1643/2019; aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed this writ petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

Parties & counsel