Kasoju Uday, Vs The State of Telangana

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary, Department^for Women, Children Disabled and Senior Citizens, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar^Telangana State Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Appellate Tribunal-Chairman and District Collector,^{Nalgonda,Nalgonda} District Appellate Tribunalfor lVlaintenance and Welfare of^{Parents and Senior} Citizens.

¶13

The Chairman, Sub-Divisional Tribunal for Maintenance^{and Welfareof} Parents and Senior Citizens, Nalgonda.

¶14

Devarakonda Anjaiah, S/o. Sathaiah, Aged about^{78 years, Occ.Agriculture,} R/o.1-1 .No.2-15, Aepoor Village of Chityal lVlandal,^{Nalgonda District.}

¶15

Kasoju Rajeshwari, W/o. Venkata Chary, Aged about⁴⁷ .years, Occ.Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-1 5, Aepoor Village of^{Chityal Mandal,Nalgonda} District. (

¶16

Kasoju Venkata Chary, S/o. Late Muthyalu, Aged about 56^years,Occ. Carpenter, R/o.H.No.2-15, Aepoor Village of Chityal Mandal,^Nalgonda District.

¶17

Rachakonda Jayalakshmi, W/o. Brahma Chary,^{Aged about 60 years,Occ.} Housewife, R/o. Thangadpally of Choutuppal^{Municipality,Choutuppal} lVandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.'

¶18

Cholleti Kavita, W/o. Venkata Chary, Aged about^{40 years, Occ.Housewife,} R/o.Domalapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District.

¶19

The Joint Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahsildar, Chityal, Nalgonda^District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Courtmay be}

¶22

q*,4'"- l ..fag',1.Er rM--

¶23

pleased to ir;sue an order, direction, writ, more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring thr: order dated 07.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 vide proceedings in Appeal No.AT102612024 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set aside the same.

¶24

Petitio r 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 )peration of the Order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶25

2

¶26

Between:

¶27

Devarakonda Anjaiah, S/o. Sathaiah, Aged about 78 years, Occ. Agriculture, F/o.1-1 .No.2-1 5, Aepoor Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

AND

¶30

Kasoju Uday, S/o. Venkata Chary, Aged about 25 years, Occ. Carpenter, Rl/o. Aepoor Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶31

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary, Department for Women, Children Disabled and Senior Citizens, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana State S scretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶32

The Apoellate Tribunal-Chairman and District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District Appellate Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens..

¶33

The Chairman, Sub-Divisional Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Nalgonda.

¶34

Kasoju Ra.jeshwari, W/o. Venkata Chary, Aged about 47 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-1 5, Aepoor Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶35

Kasoju Venkata Chary, S/o. Late Muthyalu, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Carpenter, Fi/o.H.No.2-15, Aepoor Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶36

Rachakonda Jayalakshmi, Wo. Brahma Chary, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Thangadpally of Choutuppal Municipality, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

¶37

Cholleti Kavita, W/o. Venkata Chary, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Housewife, RJo.Domalapally Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District.

¶38

The Joirrt Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahsildar, Chityal, Nalgonda District.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

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 lnterim Order dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13981 of 2025 in the interest of^justice, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.YADU KRISHNA SATNATH

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3 & 9:

¶43

GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE

¶44

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4,7 & 8: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶45

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶46

-I I :

¶47

IN TTIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶48

AT HYDERABAD

¶49

THI|, HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

¶50

WRIT PETITION NO.I398I OF 2025

DATED I^oL .01.2026

Between:

Kasoju Uday

Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana rep. by its Secretary, Department for Women, Children, Disabled And Senior Citizens, Hyderabad and others

¶57

.. Respondents

¶58

OR ER

¶59

This Writ Petition is frled challengiirg the order dt.07.03.2025

¶60

issued by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.AT/02612024 as illegal,

¶61

improper,^rrnjust and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders

¶62

Briel facts of the case are that the petitioner is the grandson of respondent No.4 and respondents^j)'Z ana 8 are the daughters and

¶63

respondent No.6 is the son-in-law of respondent No.4. The petitioner is

¶64

W.P.No.l398l of2025

¶65

2

¶66

the son of respondents 5 and 6. Respondent No.4 is a senior citizen and he filed an application before respondent No.3 under Rule 4(l) of the Maintenance and Welfare of, Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 against the petitioner herein and his other children and son-in-law, i.e., respondents 5 to 8 for cancellation of the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein. He stated that respondent No.4 herein in the O.P. filed before respondent No.3 stated that he owned Ac.4.00 of agricultural land in Survey No.406 of Aepoor Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District and he has gifted an extent of Ac.l.00 to each ofl his daughters and sold Ac.l.00 of land to the petitioner herein and executed a registered sale deed bearing Document No.1293 of 2023 dt.16.10.2023 in his favour and it is stated that the petitioner had promised to maintain respondent No.4, but since respondent No.4 was not being maintained by the petitioner^'herein, he has filed the application under Rule 4( I ) of, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 201 I for cancellation of the registered gift deed. Respondent No.3 has passed an order dt.05.09.2024 directing respondent No.9 herein to cancel the registered sale deed No.1293 of 2023 dt.16.10.2023 and to enter the name of respondent No.4 as pattedar in the revenue records. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an

t J

W.P.No.13981 of 2025

3

! !

appeal befbre respondent No.2 under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,2007 (for short, 'the Act') and the same was dismissed vide order dt.07.03.2025. Challenging the same, the ;lresent Writ Petition is filed.

¶72

Leal'ned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the grandscn of respondent No.4 and is therefore a class II heir and he has no obligation to maintain his grandfather. It is submitted that though thr: grandfather has gifted Ac.l.00 of, land to each of his daughters, he is not claiming maintenance from them and has filed the subject aplllication against the petitioner herein unnecessarily only to harass him. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the registered sale deed bearing Document No. 1293/2023 dt. 16. 10.2023, wherein it is stated that it is not a gift but it is a sale and it is executed after the sale consideration has been paid by the petitioner and therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are not applicable to this case. He has placed reliance upon the relevant provisions of law and also the following decisions of this Coun.

¶73

r

¶74

t,

¶75

W.P.No. 13981 of 2025

¶76

4

¶77

;, (: II!i tIT I I II II If! xI I I i I I I I I

¶78

(1)Smt. H. Deepika Vs. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal rep. by its

¶79

Chairman, District Collector, Karimn agar and othersl

¶80

(2)Smt. H. Deepika Vs. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal rep. by its

¶81

Chairman, District Collector, Karimnagar and others2

¶82

(3)P. Rohit Saurya Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others3

¶83

(a)Smt. Mandadi Sulochana Vs. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal rep. by its

¶84

Chairman, District Collector, Nalgonda and othersa

¶85

Learned Govemment Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare and also leamed counsel lor respondent No.4 are heard.

¶86

Respondent No.4 in his counter affidavit and stay vacate petition

¶87

submitted that the petitioner has obtained his signatures on the

¶88

I w.p.No.s t25 of 2017 dr.05.03.2020

¶89

2 w.A.No.54z of 2o2o dt.22.03.2022

¶90

3 w.p.No.30278 of 2023 dr.o8.04.2025

¶91

4 w.p.No.33877 of 2024 dt.07.08.2025

¶92

W.P.No. 1398 I of 2025

¶93

5

¶94

documentrs fraudulently on the ground of obtaining^{financialassistance} and that n,l consideration has been^paid to him^{and therefore, the subject} sale deed has to be cancelled. It is stated that^{the cotrtentions of the} petitioner are false and fabricated and are devoid of truth and^the authorities of respondents 2 and 3 have considered the^{case of} respondent No.4 and passed the order of cancellation,^{which needs no} interferenc:e

¶95

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on^record, this Court finds that respondent No.4 is a senior citizen and it^is also^not in dispute that he owned only Ac.4.00 of land in Survey^No.406 of Aepoor Village of Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, out of^whichhe has transferred Ac.3.00 of land in favour of his daughters, i.e., Ac.1.00 each to his 3 daughters and has executed a sale deed in respect of Ac.1.00 to his grandson. While the property was^gifted in favour of^the daughters, it appears that a registered sale deed has been executed in favour of tire petitioner herein. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is Class tI heir and it is the duty of the heirs who have received the land from respondent No.4 senior citizento look after him. As rightly pointed out, the prc'visions of Section 23 of the Act are not attracted where it is a

¶96

W.P.No.l398l of 2025

¶97

6

¶98

transfer for consideration and it is not gratuitous. The recitals in the registered sale deed referred to the sale consideration of Rs.3,37,3651-.

¶99

Another fact to be considered is that respondent No.4 is not seeking any relief against his daughters for his maintenance to whom he has gifted the land. As the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are not applicable in this case and the petitioner being the son of the second daughter who is already in receipt of Ac. 1.00 of land, the petitioner and the other daughters are responsible for upkeep and maintenance of respondent No.4. Therefore, the decision of respondents 2 and 3 to cancel the subject registered sale deed is set aside. Respondent No.4, however, may make an application for a direction to respondents 5, 7 and 8 to look after him

¶100

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs

¶101

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

¶102

stand closed. .-/

¶103

t\

¶104

"SD/.C.^DEEPIKA ASSISTANT 6^REGISTRAR SECTI ON OF FICER

¶105

/TRUE COPY//

¶106

To, 1. The secretary,^Department .for^{women, childrenDisabledand Senior} citizens, or.g.R.n;6Joiiai^{tetanganJSi;ib Secretariat Building,Hvderabad,} State of Telangana.

¶107