THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
WRIT PETITION No.28681 OF 2023
ORAL ORDER: (PER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN)
Heard Mr. Rizwan, learned counsel representing
Mr. MD Farhan Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Godugu
Mallesham, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the
learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Narendar Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondent No.2 herein to produce the detenu viz, Dr.Devireddy Narayana Reddy, S/o.Devireddy Narsimha Reddy, aged about 92 years, presently residing at R/o.D.No.6-3901/900, Cosmopolitan Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, before this Court and to record the statement of detenu for appropriate action in the light of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. The petitioner herein is the elder son of the alleged detenu i.e., Dr. Devireddy Narayana Reddy, aged about 92 years. He is retained by respondent No.3 illegally. Respondent No.3 is the younger brother of the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the present writ -2- petition, petitioner has stated that his father is suffering with vascular dementia and parkinsons disease. There are property disputes. He has filed a suit vide O.S.No.29 of 2022.
4. It is further submitted that the father of petitioner was staying with respondent No.3 from the year 2020 onwards and when petitioner made attempts to see his father, the respondent No.3 has not permitted him. Thus, according to the petitioner, his father was detained by respondent No.3 illegally and that the respondent No.3 is not providing proper medical treatment to his father and not taking care of his welfare.
5. In the light of the said serious allegations, this Court vide order dated 10.11.2023 directed the learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to record the statement of petitioner, to visit the house of respondent No.3 to record his statement, statement of respondent No.3 and also to record the statement of father of the petitioner and respondent No.3 i.e., Dr. Devireddy Narayana Reddy, and also statement of the sisters of the petitioner and respondent No.3 and to submit a report to the Court.
6. In compliance with the said order, the learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, submitted report -3- dated 15.11.2023 along with the statements of petitioner, respondent No.3, their father and their sisters, as well.
7. Perusal of the statement of petitioner would reveal that he has narrated the facts which are mentioned in the writ affidavit. The statement of the father of petitioner as recorded in report dated 15.11.2023 is extracted as under:
"1) Sri Dr.Narayan Reddy brought before me in wheel chair due to old age, as he unable to walk. I tried to interact with him but he not in a position to talk and he gazed at me as if he trying to identify me and he tried to talk but unable to speak. I enquired him about his health but Sri Narayan Reddy not in a position to give answer. So, I unable to record his statement. He able to eat biscuits with his own hands. Family members informed me that they looking after him well and also, they appointed a male attendant to take care of him all the time to look after his necessities and needs."
8. The respondent No.3 stated the same facts that are mentioned in the counter affidavit. Smt G. Sreelatha and Smt T.Sreevani - sisters of petitioner and respondent No.3, specifically stated that their father who was aged about 92 years is a Doctor, used to practice till the year 2000 and their mother passed -4- away on 30.06.2023 in Hyderabad. They further stated that their younger brother (respondent No.3) on advise of their father, shifted to Hyderabad and started doing business. He is providing treatment to their father and used to take care of their parents by frequently visiting Proddutoor. Smt G.Sreelatha stated that for some time she used to take care of her mother as her mother was suffering from gynic problem. During covid period, her father fell sick due to dehydration, as such, by taking into account the pandemic situation, her younger brother (respondent No.3) permanently shifted the parents to his house for proper treatment and has also engaged a male servant to continuously take care of his father.
9. As per the statements of sisters of petitioner and respondent No.3 as discussed above, the respondent No.3 never detained their father and that he has been taking care of their father. According to them, the respondent No.3 and his wife are providing proper medical treatment to their father. In other words, as per their statements, the respondent No.3 never detained their father, as alleged by petitioner.
10. Perusal of the counter affidavit of respondent No.3 would reveal that the father of petitioner and respondent No.3, had executed five registered will deeds dated 26.12.1996, 17.09.2008, -5- 27.08.2012, 13.12.2016 and 14.08.2019, respectively, bequeathing the properties therein in favour of respondent No.3.
11. In paragraph 6-h of the counter affidavit, there is specific mention about legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner from 2022 onwards. Paragraph No.6-h is extracted below:
"A. Suit bearing OS.No.29 of 2022 filed by the Petitoner against his own father in Proddatur Court for cancellation of Gift Deed;
B. Letter dated 28.03.2023 addressed to the Office of the District Welfare Office, Woman Child Disabled & Senior Citizens sought for custody of my father; C. Writ Petition No.14233 of 2023 filed before this Hon'ble Court for handover of custody ofparents wherein the Respondent No.3 produced a copy of the 5 Will Deeds for the first time and the Petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition;
D. Present Writ Petition No.28681 of 2023 filed before this Hon'ble Court with a prayer to direct Police to bring my 92 year old father to Court to record his statement;
E. Police complaint filed before the Punjagutta police station in the month of October 2023 after filing the present writ petition."-6-
12. In paragraph No.6-n of the counter affidavit, the respondent No.3 specifically contended that after this Court ordered notice in the present writ petition, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 - Station House Officer, Police Station, Panjagutta, who in turn deputed a Police Constable to the house of respondent No.3, thereafter, the petitioner and his wife, along with Police Constable went to the house of respondent NO.3. The said fact was admitted by petitioner as well in his reply.
13. The Court is informed that the earlier writ petition No.14233 of 2023 filed by the petitioner, wherein, one sister of petitioner was also made as party, was dismissed as withdrawn.
14. The aforestated facts would reveal that there were disputes between petitioner and respondent No.3 with regard to property owned by their father - Dr. Devireddy Narayana Reddy. This is a writ of habeas corpus. The proceedings in the writ of habeas corpus are summary in nature and it has to be decided basing on the affidavits filed by the parties in the writ petition. In the present writ petition, we have to decide as to whether the father of the petitioner is detained by respondent No.3 or not.
15. Having regard to the statements of petitioner, respondent No.3, their father and their sisters, this Court is of the considered -7- opinion that the father of petitioner is not in illegal detention of respondent No.3, as alleged by the petitioner. However, it is clear that there are disputes between petitioner and respondent No.3 with regard to the property of their father. Though there are property disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, the petitioner cannot convert this writ petition into a property dispute. If respondent No.3 did not permit the petitioner to see his father, it is for the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law and he cannot file a writ petition alleging illegal detention of his father by respondent No.3.
16. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to see his father and respondent No.3 shall co- operate with the petitioner. However, the petitioner is warned to not repeat such acts and file writ petitions one after the other and approach respondent No.2 by making false allegations against respondent No.3. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J __________________ K.SUJANA, J Date: 16.11.2023 PT