Dr. Devireddy Sreedhar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 4053 Tel

               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

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

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

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,

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."

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

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