Telangana High Court
G. Kuresh Kumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 April, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.14804 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri D.Jagadeshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Resu Mahendar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3.
3. Petitioners' son and daughter-in-law of respondent No.2 filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 in Case No.D/2064/2023, dated 30.05.2023. Respondent No.2 had filed an application under Rule 4(1) of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 against petitioners and respondent No.3, seeking certain reliefs including maintenance, medical and healthcare, protection of life, protection of property, void transfer of property, return of document etc. On 2 receipt of notice, petitioners entered their appearance and filed written statement as well as additional written statement contending that the said application filed by respondent No.2 is not maintainable. They have also stated about the suit filed by petitioner No.1 vide O.S.No.199 of 2023, seeking declaration, mandatory injunction and also an interim injunction granted by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.955 of 2023, dated 19.04.2023. There is no consideration of the said contentions of petitioners in the impugned order.
4. In the impugned order, respondent No.1 simply stated that during hearing, as per the depositions and after going through the contentions of the petitioners and respondents and based on the material available on record, he has passed the impugned order. It is not a reasoned order. No reasons were assigned while granting these reliefs in favour of respondent No.2. In fact, there is no consideration of the contentions raised by the 3 petitioners before respondent No.1 in the written statement and additional written statement.
5. Sri D.Jagadeshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the unregistered gift deed of February, 2022 would submit that there is no recital in the said gift deed that petitioner No.1 will take care of the welfare of respondent No.2. He would submit that respondent No.2 has executed the said unregistered gift deed in favour of petitioner No.1 during lifetime of his father, who died on 13.03.2022. He has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi and another 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there should be recital in the document executed by parent with regard to providing basic amenities and basic physical needs of the parent.
6. According to Sri D.Jagadeshwar Rao, learned counsel, though petitioners specifically pleaded the said 1 2023 (1) ALD 114 (SC) 4 aspects, there is no consideration of the same by respondent No.1 in the impugned order.
7. Whereas, Sri Resu Mahendar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Pawan Kumar and others v. Divisional Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Government of Delhi and others 2, wherein the Division Bench of Delhi High Court referring to the intent of the Act, held that there is no need of pleading in the document including gift document with regard to amenities to be provided by children to the parent. Similar view was taken by Kerala High Court in Radhamani v. State of Kerala 3.
8. Section 6 of the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act') deals with Jurisdiction and Procedure and Sub Section 6 of Section 6 says that the Tribunal before hearing an application under Section 5 may, refer the same to a Conciliation Officer and such Conciliation Officer shall 2 AIR 2023 DELHI 11 3 2015 SCC ONLINE Ker 33530 5 submit his findings within one month and if amicable settlement has been arrived at, the Tribunal shall pass an order to that effect. The said procedure was not followed by respondent No.1 while disposing of the said application.
9. Section 23 of the Act deals with Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances and it is relevant. The same is extracted hereunder:
"1. Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has transferred 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.
2. Where any senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of right.
3. If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5".6
10. There is no consideration of the said aspects by respondent No.1 in the impugned order.
11. Vide order dated 14.06.2023, this Court granted interim suspension only to the extent of direction Nos.1 and 2 contained in the order dated 30.05.2023 passed in Case No.D/2064/2023.
12. Sri D.Jagadishwar Rao, learned counsel on instructions would submit that petitioners are complying with the direction Nos.3 to 5.
13. At this stage, Sri Resu Mahendar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would contend that petitioners and respondent No.3 shall not restrict or disturb the entrance of respondent No.2 mother in the subject property.
14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed, setting aside the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 in Case No.D/2064/2023, dated 30.05.2023 and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1 with a direction to consider the aforesaid application filed by respondent No.2 and pass 7 appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law afresh, by putting the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 on notice and affording them an opportunity. Respondent No.1 shall consider the aforesaid principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments and also the contentions of the petitioners in the written statement as well as additional written statement. He shall consider the pendency of the aforesaid suit and subsistence of an interim injunction. He shall complete the aforesaid entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 are directed to comply with the direction Nos.3 to 5 of the impugned order. In the meanwhile, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 shall not prevent the respondent No.2 mother with regard to her entry in respect of the subject property i.e., house property bearing No.5-16/2/12, consisting of room and open space in Sy.No.76 and T.S.No.32, admeasuring 398 Sq.yards, situated at Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
8
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 16.04.2024 vsl/sa