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
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
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
2023 (1) ALD 114 (SC)
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
AIR 2023 DELHI 11
2015 SCC ONLINE Ker 33530
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".
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
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.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
16.04.2024
vsl/sa
