Telangana High Court
Challa Bhavani vs The State Of Telangana on 24 September, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.26423 OF 2024
O R D E R:
(ORAL)
Heard Sri Deepak Chowdary, learned counsel for
petitioner, Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Revenue and perused the record.
02. In view of the nature of relief sought for in this Writ
Petition, notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with.
03. Respondent No.5 filed an application dated
08.05.2023 before respondent No.3 with a request to cancel the
Gift settlement deed bearing document No.6741 of 2018 dated
27.09.2018 which was executed in favour of his daughter i.e.
petitioner herein. Vide Order dated 12.08.2024 respondent
No.3 directed the Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills to cancel the said
Gift Settlement Deed executed by respondent No.5 in favour of
petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner
preferred an appeal under Section 16(1) of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'Act,
2007'). Vide Order dated 11.09.2024, respondent No.2 rejected
the said appeal on the ground that the said appeal is not
maintainable in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act, 2007.
Challenging the said order, petitioner filed the present Writ
Petition.
04. It is relevant to note that Section 2(a) of the Act,
2007 deals with the definition of 'children', and it says that
'children' includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-
daughter, but does not include a minor. Section 4 of the Act,
2007 deals with maintenance of parents and senior citizen.
Admittedly, petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.5. This
Court in H.Deepika v. Maintenance and Welfare of the
Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal 1 interpreted
Section 16 of the Act, 2007 and held that an appeal filed by
children under the said provision is maintainable. The said
Order was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide
Judgment dated 22.03.2022 in W.A.No.547 of 2020. The said
aspect was not considered by respondent No.2 in the impugned
Order.
05. According to this Court, a daughter falls within the
definition of 'children' under Section - 2 (a) of the Act, 2007. The
said view was also expressed by this Court in H.Deepika
1Order in W.P. No.5125 of 2017, decided on 05.03.2020
(supra). Further, various High Courts including the Punjab &
Haryana High Court and the Allahabad High Court have held
that an appeal under Section - 16 can be filed by children also.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Akhilesh
Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 relying on the decision by
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya
v. Union of India 3 has held as follows:
"8. In a similar controversy the Madras High Court in
Balamurugan v. Rukmani (C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 437 of
April 2015) in agreement with the view taken in
Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra) has held that an
appeal under section 16 of the Act, 2007 would be
maintainable at the behest of both the parties, i.e. at
the instance of the aggrieved party for the reason that
where the Tribunal decides a case in favour of the
senior citizens or parents, the children or dependent or
relatives against whom the order is passed and against
whom it can be enforced under section 11 of the Act,
2007 would be the aggrieved person and have a right
to file an appeal.
9. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken
by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit
Kumar Saroya (supra) and Balamurugan (supra)
because if the right of appeal is denied to the aggrieved
party, namely, child or children or relatives the appeal
22019 SCC OnLine All 5196
32014 SCC OnLine P&H 10864
clause under the Act, 2007 would be frustrated and
tantamount to denying them the similar right of appeal
as provided to another party who is the senior citizens
or parents."
06. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal
filed by petitioner before respondent No.2 is maintainable in
terms of Section 16 of the Act, 2007. She can raise all the
contentions which she raised in the present writ petition in
such appeal. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.09.2024
passed in Case No. B/1887/2023 by respondent No.2 is liable
to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter
is remanded back to respondent No.2 with a direction to dispose
of the appeal filed by petitioner under Section 16(1) of the Act,
2007 challenging the Order dated 12.08.2024 passed by
respondent No.3, strictly in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within 60 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this Order. Till then, the Order dated
12.08.2024 vide Proceedings No.B/1887/2023 issued by
respondent No.3 shall not be given effect.
07. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date: 24-SEP-2024
KHRM
