Allowed

Y. Krishna Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2025WP/27679/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Appellate Tribunal's cancellation of a registered gift deed executed in his favour by his mother. The High Court noted that since it had already set aside the appellate order dated 20.06.2025, with which the original order stood merged, the underlying order of the third respondent could not stand, and allowed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Y. Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 27679 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Y. KRISHNA KUMAR, S/o Late. Y. Jagannath Chary, Rl/o 1-9-1911618-28lFl1 , TRT Quarters, Ramangar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶13

The Director, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶14

The Court of the Appellate Tribunal and District Collector and Magistrate, Hyderabad District.

¶15

The Sub Registrar, Chikkadpally Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari calling for the entire record pursuant to the impugned order d1.20.02.2024 in application No.A1205412024 Respondent No.3 basing on the orders passed by this Honourable Court writ^petition No.21 153 of 2025, d1.22.O7.2O25, is illegal, without assigning any reason, bad under law, arbitrary, unjust without appreciation of facts on record and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently may set aside the cancellation orders of Regd. Gift Deed vide doc. No.20B ot 2021 ,d1.11.01^.2021 which was executed in favour of petitioner by respondent No.3 herein

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2O2s

¶19

Petition under Section^'t 51 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 Respondent No.4 to withhold cancellation of Gift Deed vide doc. No.208 of 2021 , dt.11.01.202'1 which was given by the Respondent No.3 herein basing on its order passed in application No-A12O5412O24, dt.20.O2.2O24^pending disposal of the writ^petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KOTA SAMEER KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3&4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶22

WRIT PETITION No. 27679 OF 2025

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner and the learned Assistalt Government Pieader for Women and Child Welfare.

¶25

The petitioner's mother Y. Sarojini has frled an application before the 3.d respondent seeking cancellation of registered gift deed bearing Document No.2O8 of 2O2l dated 11.01.202 1 in respect of house bearing No.1-9-19/16 lB-28/F/ 1, admeasuring 188.84 sq.yards, situated at TRT Quarters, Ram-Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. Vide order dated 2O.O2.2O24, t}re 3.d respondent allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 16 (1) of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2OOZ before the 2"d respondent. During the pendency of the said appeal, petitioner's mother died on 12.1O.2024. Despite bringing the said fact to the notice of the 2"d respondent, he had passed order dated 20.06.2025 in appeal No.S1/515/2O24 confirming the order passed by the 3.d respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.2l153 of 2025 challenging the said order. Vide order dated 22.07.2025, this Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order dated 20.06.2025 of^2"d respondent. Now,^the

¶26

¶27

petitioner is seeking to set aside ttre order dated 2O.O2.2O25 passed by the f,.4 respondent.

¶28

In the aforesaid order dated 2O.O7.2025, this Court set aside the order dated 20.06 .2025 of 2"d respondent only. This Court has not set aside the order dated 20.O2.2024 of 3.d respondent. In fact, the said order dated 2O.O2.2O24 of 3.d respondent is merged with the order dated 20.06.2025 of 2"a respondent.

¶29

In the light of the same, this Writ Petition is allowed and the orcier dated 2O.O2.2O25 in Application No.A/2054/2O24 of 3,a respondent is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Miscellaneous applications, if arry pending, shall stand

¶31

closed.

¶32

SD/- G.JYOTHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

/ITRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The^{Principal Secretary, Empowermentof Personswith Disabilities'Senior} Citizens and^{rransgendJ' iffiil;-blp"ttn"nt' Secretariat'Hvderabad'}

¶37

, ' If;5"8?3ior,^{Departmentof Empowerment.of ,Persons with Disabilities'} s Ji i"7'b-itiii,nt^{i nE im nig"nder P6rsons' rlv.o:t".bud' Telansana'}

¶38

1. The court^{of the AppeiLlE"irt'uir*ti"ii Districtcollector and Magistrate,} Hvderabad^District.

¶39

- ril"lr"uH"qilii"f^{cnLr.uopallvAshokNag.ar' Hvd.erabad} ;. o;;"ceto-Eni.^{kbrn iAr'iEEhKUMAR,-AdvocateIoPUCI} 6. rwo CCs to^{Gp FoR i{Ui'/-EN"rjEV"crirlowelrnne,HishCourt for the} - Sirie oir.tangana at Hyderabad [OUTI ^

¶40

Two ccs to^{Gp ron ht'vHNue'nigt-icourtfor the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶41

Two^{CD CoPies}

B M^pntq TKS

/ t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 510912025

ORDER

WP.No.27679 ot 2025

5 TA
oc ,t
2 { JAil 2026
u
t

¶49

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

htc, ortrr-l>{

Y. Krishna Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Y. Krishna Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Novus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sriramula Bharathamma Vs The State of Telangana

Yemeni Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Telangana

Didige Jaipal Vs The State of Telangana

Kethavath Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Shamshu @ Mohammed. Shamshuddin, Vs The State of Telangana