Telangana High Court
Smt. B. Nalini vs The State Of Telnagana on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.4405 & 8592 of 2019
DATED: 25.03.2026
Between:
B.Nalini ...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.4405 of 2019 is filed to call for the records in Case No.H/2524/2018, dated 18.12.2018, pending before the respondent No.2 filed by respondent No.3 and consequently, to set aside the same.
2. W.P.No.8592 of 2019 is filed to call for the records in Case No.H/2524/2018, dated 25.02.2019 of respondent No.2 and consequently to set aside the same and also to declare the revocation of Gift Settlement deed No.2289 of 2019 registered by respondent No.4 as null and void.
LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 2
3. Since the parties in both the writ petitions are one and the same and the issue is interlinked, both the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order.
4. Heard Sri A.P.Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development & Child Welfare.
5. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that petitioner is the owner and possessor of the house bearing No.5-45, situated in Plot No.743 of Sriram Nagar Colony, Puppalaguda, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'), having acquired the same under registered unconditional Gift Deed No.3483 of 2011, dated 28.04.2011, executed by her father-respondent No.3; that her name was mutated in the municipal records in respect of subject property and she has been paying property tax, electricity and water consumption charges regularly; that due to misunderstandings between petitioner's mother and father-respondent No.3, petitioner's mother has filed an application vide O.P.No.2311 of 2018, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 r/w. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking divorce against respondent No.3; that respondent No.3 at the behest of petitioner's younger sister filed an application under LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 3 Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act, 2007'), before the respondent No.2 seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed executed in favour of petitioner herein; that respondent No.2 had issued notice dated 18.12.2018, calling upon the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 and the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.2 on 18.02.2019, however, respondent No.2 insisted the petitioner to cancel the Gift Deed executed in her favour and also to withdraw the divorce and criminal complaints filed against respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed W.P.No.4405 of 2019.
6. This Court vide Order dated 05.03.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.4405 of 2019, granted interim stay of cancellation of registered gift deed dated 28.04.2011, however, the respondent No.2 vide Order dated 25.02.2019 in Case No.H/2524/2018, cancelled the gift settlement deed No.2289 of 2019, dated 28.04.2011, unilaterally. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed W.P.No.8592 of 2019.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 passed the impugned proceedings dated 25.02.2019, cancelling the registered gift settlement deed No.3483 of 2011, dated 28.11.2011, without issuing any notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; that respondent No.3 is LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 4 drawing a pension of more than Rs.60,000/- per month, therefore, he cannot seek any relief under the provisions of the Act, 2007; that the Gift Settlement Deed dated 28.11.2011, does not contain pre- condition of maintenance of respondent No.3 by the petitioner, therefore, the respondent No.2 committed error in passing impugned Order; that petitioner did not attend the hearing and has not agreed for cancellation of the gift deed, however, the respondent No.2 cancelled the gift deed by way of 'consent Order' stating that respondents therein have given consent for cancelling the gift deed subject to conditions, therefore, prayed to allow the writ petitions.
8. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 by referring to the counter would submit that respondent No.3 has constructed the subject property by taking loan from the bank and gifted the same to the petitioner under registered gift deed No.3483 of 2011, dated 28.11.2011, with a hope that petitioner would take care of him; that the petitioner in collusion with her mother, necked out the respondent No.3 from the subject property in the month of October, 2018 and rented the part of subject property to third parties; that respondent No.3 filed an application before respondent No.2 invoking Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007, for cancellation of gift deed; that respondent No.2 heard both the parties and vide Order dated LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 5 25.02.2019, cancelled the gift deed No.3483 of 2011, dated 28.11.2011, since the respondents therein have given consent for cancellation of gift deed; that pursuant to the said Order, on 07.03.2019, respondent No.4 has revoked the gift settlement deed No.3483 of 2011, executed in favour of the petitioner.
9. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that petitioner's mother has filed an application vide O.P.No.2311 of 2018, before Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, against respondent No.3 seeking divorce and the same was decreed by the Trial Court vide Order dated 09.11.2024, directing the respondent No.3 herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner's mother. He further submitted that though, the respondent No.3 was getting a pension of Rs.65,000/- per month, he has to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards rent, since the petitioner necked him out from the subject property and also pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to petitioner's wife towards maintenance. Apart from that, respondent No.3 was suffering with old age ailments and is unable to bear the medical expenses. He further submitted that he was residing in a rented house and was unable to maintain himself, therefore, approached respondent No.2 for cancellation of gift deed LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 6 executed by him by invoking Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007 and the respondent No.2 by duly following the procedure and after hearing both the parties, had passed the impugned Order dated 25.02.2019, cancelling the gift settlement deed dated 28.11.2011; and that the writ petition is devoid of any merit, therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Since the learned Counsel for petitioner specifically contended that the petitioner did not appear before respondent No.2 nor gave consent for passing impugned proceedings, this Court called for original file of the proceedings of respondent No.2 and the same is placed before the Court by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
11. Perusal of the original record discloses that on 18.02.2019, petitioner, respondent No.3 along with their respective Counsels were present before respondent No.2 and a consensus has been arrived at between the parties, as per which, petitioner herein agreed for cancellation of gift deed No.3483 of 2011, dated 28.11.2011, however, on certain conditions that:
i) respondent No.3 shall not alienate the subject property during his life time;
LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 7
ii) the subject property would be shared by petitioner and her sister equally after the death of respondent No.3; and
iii) respondent No.3 shall take care of his wife i.e., mother of petitioner in all aspects i.e., physically and mentally as well as day to day needs.
It is also recorded that both the parties have agreed to file their respective affidavits to that effect. The proceedings dated 18.02.2019, were signed by petitioner, respondent No.3 and Shoba Kumari i.e., mother of petitioner and wife of respondent No.3, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 cancelled the gift settlement deed unilaterally in her absence without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to her is untenable.
12. Pursuant to proceedings dated 18.02.2019, respondent No.3 executed security bond dated 19.02.2019 as under:-
"i) I shall look after the welfare and health of my wife B.Shoba Kumari in all aspects.
ii) I undertake to give an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees Only) per month for her pocket and other expenses apart from house hold expenses by collecting the rents of the building/premises.
iii) I will not quarrel with my wife at any point of time even though she provokes me.
iv) I shall not dispose my properties without consent of my family.
LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 8
v) I will take care of my wife on all aspects and I will pay the property taxes, current bills, water bills etc. relating to the maintenance of the building, and I shall bear all the costs.
vi) I will cooperate to lead happy and pious life subject to cooperation from the other side."
However, it appears that petitioner and her mother i.e., B.Shoba Kumari, did not submit affidavits contrary to undertaking/consent given in the open Court, therefore, respondent No.2 passed the impugned Order dated 25.02.2019, by duly taking into consideration pleadings and material placed on record. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned Order, respondent No.2 specifically observed that petitioner herein is interested only in the properties of respondent No.3, but not the welfare of her father and encouraged her mother to live separately and to file divorce petition, which shows the attitude of the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2 passed the impugned Order cancelling the registered gift deed dated 28.11.2011, however, directed the respondent No.3 not to alienate the subject property without consent of his family members and he should take care of welfare and health of his wife, pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to her and shall also pay property tax, electricity bills and water bills etc., of subject property and ensure that his wife shall lead a happy life and should also bear all medical expenses and shall not quarrel with his wife.
LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 9
13. In so far as, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed in violation of the interim order granted by this Court is concerned, admittedly, the interim order was passed on 05.03.2019, whereas the impugned order cancelling the gift deed was passed on 25.02.2019, i.e., prior to granting of interim Order by this Court, therefore the contention of the petitioner has no legs to stand. Though, the gift settlement deed dated 28.11.2011 does not contain specific condition regarding maintenance of respondent No.3, by petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner herself consented to the cancellation of the gift deed subject to certain conditions, which is evident from the proceedings dated 18.02.2019 of respondent No.2, she cannot now be permitted to turn back and re-agitate the issue by way of the present writ petitions.
14. In the light of above discussion, the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY DATE: 25.03.2026 Tri LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019 DATE: 25.03.2026 TRI