Smt.Rudrakshi Sumalatha vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1619 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt.Rudrakshi Sumalatha vs The State Of Telangana on 7 August, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                WRIT PETITION No.9922 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri K. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Smt. G.Vijaya Kumari, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Women

Department and Child Welfare, appearing for 2nd respondent, Mr.

M.Venkanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9.

2. The petitioner is daughter-in-law of respondents 5 and 6,

respondents 7 to 9 are daughters of respondents 5 and 6. Petitioner's

husband i.e. Yadagiri is no more.

3. Respondent No.5 has filed an application under th provisions

of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Seniors Citizens Act,

2007 (for short, 'the Act') before 3rd respondent contending that her

husband Sri Rudrakshi Sailu, died and therefore she was not in a

position to maintain herself. She is not in a position to meet medical

expenses. Therefore, she sought a direction to the petitioner herein,

her daughter-in-law to meet medical expenses incurred by her.

4. Vide order dated 24.01.2025, 3rd respondent allowed the said

application and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- to 5th respondent towards medical expenses within ten

days from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which patta in

respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.13 guntas in Sy.No.256/2

situated at Ibrahimet, Nidamanoor Mandal, Nalgonda District, will be

cancelled. The petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal challenging

the said order.

5. Thereafter, 4th respondent has issued notice dated 10.02.2025

to the petitioner requesting her to appear on 11.02.2025, on which

date, the petitioner appeared before 4th respondent and informed him

that she is ready to pay the said amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as ordered by

3rd respondent vide order dated 24.01.2025. The said fact was

informed to 5th respondent. Even then, 5th respondent did not appear

before 4th respondent for receiving the said amount. Therefore, 4th

respondent adjourned the enquiry to 11.02.2025 at 11.00 A.M. The

said fact was also informed to 5th respondent.

6. The petitioner appeared before 4th respondent on 11.02.2025.

5th respondent did not appear for enquiry on 11.02.2025. Therefore,

the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 11.02.2025 to 4th respondent

stating that she is ready to pay the said amount. Despite intimating the

said fact by 4th respondent, 5th respondent did not appear for the

enquiry. 5th respondent refused to receive the money. If 5th respondent

furnishes her bank account and passbook, the petitioner will deposit

the said amount into the account of 5th respondent in compliance with

the order dated 24.01.2025 by 3rd respondent. Therefore, he has closed

the enquiry vide proceedings dated 11.02.2025.

7. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 11.02.2025 of 3rd

respondent, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred an appeal under Section

16(1) of the Act before 2nd respondent. Vide order dated 17.03.2025,

2nd respondent directed the writ petitioner to pay the said amount of

Rs.5 Lakhs by 15.03.2025 to 5th respondent by depositing in her A/c.

No.62275417089, State Bank of India, Halia (Anumula) Branch, IFSC

Code No. SBIN0021245. If she fails to deposit an amount of Rs.5

Lakhs, capital punishment for six months would be imposed. 2nd

respondent further held that since the petitioner neglected 5th

respondent to provide necessary support to her, cancellation of the gift

deed executed by 5th respondent in favour of the petitioner is fully

justified. Accordingly, an extent of one acre out of total extent is to be

re-transferred and mutated the same back in the name of 5th

respondent. With the said directions, he has closed the said appeal.

8. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present

writ petition contending that the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 is

beyond the scope of Section 23 (1) of the Act. There is no

consideration of notice dated 10.02.2025 of 3rd respondent and order

dated 11.02.2025 of 3rd respondent. The petitioner has already

deposited an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs in compliance with the order dated

01.04.2025 in W.P.No.9922 of 2025 in the bank account of 5th

respondent.

9. It is further contended that during his lifetime, the petitioner's

husband was engaged in agriculture in the ancestral property

admeasuring Ac.14.25 guntas in Ibrahimpet Village and Ac.3.13

guntas in Nidmanoor Village. The said properties were in the name of

respondents 5 and 6. The amount received from the agriculture was

handed over to the respondents 5 and 6. Prior to death of her husband,

some of its agricultural lands were sold by respondents 5 and 6 to

third parties and they have not paid even single rupee either to her

husband or to the writ petitioner. They gave the said amount to their

daughters. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 executed gift deeds in favour of

their daughters/respondent Nos. 8 and 9 with regard to the land

admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas each in Sy.No.256 out of Ac.17.38

guntas. After demise of the petitioner's husband, respondent Nos. 5

and 6 distributed the property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.1.15 guntas

and 1.28 guntas in Sy.No.256, total Ac.3.03 guntas. Thus, the

petitioner is holding only Ac.3.03 guntas.

10. After demise of petitioner's husband, respondent No.6 has

executed a registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner's daughter to

an extent of Ac.5.24 guntas in Sy.No.497/1, Ac.4.97 guntas in

Sy.No.498/10, Ac.0.05 guntas in Sy.No.32, Ac.0.32 guntas in

Sy.No.504/9 situated at Ibrahimpet Village, Nidmanoor Mandal,

Nalgonda District.

11. It is further contended that 5th respondent sold the land

admeasuring Ac.1.23 guntas in Sy.No.289/1A and Ac.1.30 guntas in

Sy.No.290/3A in total Ac.3.30 guntas under registered sale deed

bearing document No.2390 of 2016 dated 05.10.2016, despite

objection of the petitioner. The said sale deed was executed in favour

of Sri Nemani Srinivas. The petitioner has a daughter. She is staying

in Ibrahimpet village, Anumula Mandal, Nalgonda District along with

her daughter. Respondents 5 and 6 are prosecuting the said litigation

at the instance of respondent Nos. 7 to 9. Without considering the said

aspects, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 17.03.2025

in Appeal No.AT/030/DWO/2025. With the said submissions, the

petitioner sought to set aside the said order.

12. Whereas, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Women

Development and Child Welfare Department would contend that the

object of the Act is to protect interest of Senior Citizens. On

consideration of the said aspects only, respondent No.3 has passed the

order dated 24.01.2025 and respondent No.2 also passed order dated

17.03.2025. There is no irregularity in both the orders.

13. Whereas, Sri M.Venkanna, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos. 5 to 9 would contend that 5th respondent is suffering

with serious neuro problem which requires an amount of Rs.20,000/-

per day. 6th respondent is also suffering with various old age issues.

The petitioner is not taking care of respondent Nos.5 and 6. On

consideration of the said aspects only, respondents 3 and 2 passed the

aforesaid orders. There is no irregularity in both the orders.

14. As discussed supra, 5th respondent filed an application

before 3rd respondent under the provisions of the Act, seeking

maintenance and medical expenses from the writ petitioner. Vide

order dated 24.01.2025, 3rd respondent allowed the said application

and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to 5th

respondent failing which, the patta in respect of Ac.1.13 guntas in

Sy.No.256/2 situated at Nidmanoor village, would be cancelled.

In the order dated 24.01.2025, there is no mention that 5th

respondent sought cancellation of the registered gift deeds in terms of

Section 23(1) of the Act. 5th respondent only sought maintenance and

medical expenses from the writ petitioner. Even then, vide order dated

24.01.2025, 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to pay an amount of

Rs.5 Lakhs within ten days, failing which, patta in respect of land

admeasuring Ac.1.13guntas in Sy.No.256/2 would be cancelled.

15. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that

Section 23 of the Act deals with transfer of property to be void in

certain circumstances and the same is extracted below:-

23. Transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

1. Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has 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 organization referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 5.

16. As per the said provision, the following pre-requisites are to

be fulfilled:-

1. The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that

the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic

physical needs to the transferor,

2. The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and

physical needs to the transferor.

The aforesaid conditions are satisfied and the transfer shall be deemed

to have been made by way of fraud or coercion or undue influence.

Such a transfer becomes voidable at the instance of the transferor and

the Maintenance Tribunal gets jurisdiction to declare the transfer as

void.

17. In Sudesh Chhikara (supra), in paragraph No.13, the Apex

Court held as follows:-

13. When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any

expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 23 are attached to a transfer, existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.

18. In Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit , the Apex Court

considered the scope and ambit of Sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Act

and the same are extracted below:-

23. The Appellant has submitted before us that such an undertaking stands grossly unfulfilled, and in her petition under Section 23, it has been averred that there is a breakdown of peaceful relations inter se the parties. In such a situation, the two conditions mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislature. Therefore, the Single Judge of the High Court and the tribunals below had rightly held the Gift Deed to be cancelled since the conditions for the well-

being of the senior citizens were not complied with. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench, because it takes a strict view of a beneficial legislation.

24. Before parting with the case at hand, we must clarify the observations made vide the impugned order qua the competency of the Tribunal to hand over possession of the property. In S. Vanitha (supra), this Court observed that Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals

2025 INSC 20

constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. This would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, which is to provide speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.

25. Another observation of the High Court that must be clarified, is Section 23 being a standalone provision of the Act. In our considered view, the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee.

19. In Mohamed Dayan vs. District Collector, Tiruppur

District and others 2, the Madras High Court held as follows:-

34. In the context of the adoption of the phrase "lead a normal life"

Rule 20(2)(i) of the Maintenance of Senior Citizen Rules, enumerates that "it shall be the duty of the District Collector to ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the District are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity".

Therefore, normal life includes security and dignity. Thus the normal life as indicated under Section 4(2) of the Act, is not mere life, but a life with security and dignity. In the context of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, life includes decent medical facility, food, shelter with dignity and security. All such combined necessities of human https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis life is falling

MANU/TN/5114/2023

under the term "Normal Life" emboldened under Section 4(2) of the Senior Citizen Act. Therefore, simply providing food and shelter would be insufficient. But life includes providing of decent medical facilities, food, shelter and other requirements with dignity in commensuration with the status of the family and taking into consideration of the living style of the senior citizen throughout.

35..................

36..................

37....................

38. The Kerala High Court observed in the case of Radhamani and Others (cited supra), Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizen Act, cannot be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis interpreted to the disadvantage of the senior citizen. Section 23(1) of the Act contemplates that "Where any senior citizen who, after the commencement of this Act, has 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". The phrase " subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities" does not mean that the Gift or Settlement Deed should contain any such condition expressly.

"Subject to the condition" as employed in Section 23(1), is to be holistically understood with reference to the subsequent phrase i.e., "deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or undue influence". Both the phrases would amplify that the deeming clause should be considered so as to form an opinion that the phrase "subject to condition" amounts to an implied condition to

maintain the senior citizen and any violation would be sufficient for the purpose of invoking Section 23(1) of the Act, to cancel the Gift or Settlement Deed executed by the senior citizen.

39. ...............

40 .................

41. The entire purpose and object of the Senior Citizens Act, is to consider the human conduct towards them. When the human conduct is indifferent towards senior citizen and their security and dignity are not protected, then the provisions of the Act, is to be pressed into service to safeguard the security and dignity of senior citizen. Therefore, the purposive interpretation of the provisions are of paramount importance and Section 23 of the Act, cannot be mis-utilised for the purpose of rejecting the complaint filed by the senior citizen on the ground that there is no express condition for maintaining the senior citizen. Even in the absence of any express condition in the document, "Love and Affection" being the consideration for execution of Gift or Settlement Deed, such love and affection becomes a deeming consideration and any violation is a ground to invoke Section 23(1) of the Act. Thus there is no infirmity in respect of the order passed by the second respondent in the present case.

20. In Radhamani and others vs. State of Kerala 3, Kerala

High Court considered Section 122 of Transfer of Property Act 1882

and held that Section 23 of the Act, 2007 does not contemplate that

the condition should form part as recital in the deed of transfer. It only

2015 SCC OnLine Ker 33530

refers that there should be a condition for such transfer. This

condition can be either express or implied. If there is no express

recital in the deed, the Tribunal has to look around the circumstances

to find out whether conduct otherwise dispel the intention of donor to

revoke. The consideration for executing a gift deed or settlement deed

is based on human conduct, caring and conscientious. Transfer

admittedly is out of love and affection. Any donor in a gift deed

would expect in a natural course of human conduct that continues to

behave in same manner as behaved before execution of the deed. The

love and affection influenced for execution of the deed certainly must

be enduring and without any barrier.

21. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court approved the said

principle laid down by Single Judge in Radhamani (supra) and

Subhashini vs. District Collector4.

22. On consideration of the said judgments, Division Bench of

Madras High Court in S. Mala vs. District Arbitrator & District

Collector5, on examination of the facts of the said case, where the

senior citizen has three daughters, but she has executed settlement

deed in favour of her only son denying equal rights to her daughters.

2020 SCC Online Ker 4080

Judgment dated 06.03.2025 in W.A.No.3582 and CMP Nos.27835 and 27838 of 2024

Therefore it would be a natural expectation that her son and daughter-

in-law would take care of her till her lifetime. Such a condition being

implied under Section 23(1) of the Act, the decision of the competent

authority annulling the settlement deed is in consonance with the spirit

and objectives of the Act.

23. Vide order dated 08.04.2024, in W.P.No.30278 of 2023 in

P.Rohit Saurya vs. the State of Telangana, relying on the principle

in Sudesh Chhikara (supra), held that cancellation of gift deeds by

the Maintenance Tribunal therein vide impugned order is without

jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the Act and this Court observed

that the aforesaid two conditions/pre-requisites of Section 23 of the

Act, are lacking.

24. The Bombay High Court in Sheetal Devang Shah v.

Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal 6 examined the definitions

in detail and expressly noted:

48. In Section 2(a), "children" is defined and includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter but does not include a minor. Section 2(b) defines "maintenance" to include provisions for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment. Section 2(d) defines "parent" to mean father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step father or step mother, as the case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is a

2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1068

senior citizen. Section 2(f) provides for definition of "property" to mean the property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self-

acquired, tangible or intangible and includes rights or interests in such property. Section (g) defines "relative" to mean any legal heir of the childless senior citizen who is not a minor and is in possession of or would inherit his property after his death. Section 2(h) defines "senior citizen" to mean any person being a citizen of India, who has attained the age of sixty years or above; As per Section 2(j), "Tribunal" means the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under section 7 and under Section 2(k), "welfare" means provision for food, health care, recreation centres and other amenities necessary for the senior citizens.

51. There is a provision under Section 4, which states about maintenance of parents and senior citizens, which reads as under:--

"4. Maintenance of parents and senior citizens.- (1) A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 in case of--

(i) parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor;

(ii) a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of section 2.

2. The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.

(3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.

(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen:

Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property."

62. We have reservations about such direction to Sheetal Shah to pay maintenance amount to Nalini Shah. As already observed, in Section 2(a), 'children' include son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter and there is no reference to the daughter-in-law. Be that as it may, upon perusal of the original record, we do not find a single document showing the earnings of Sheetal Shah. In that view of the matter, the Impugned Order, to the extent that it directs Sheetal Shah to pay Rs. 25,000/- alongwith her husband Devang Shah to Nalini Shah and Mahendra Shah, cannot be legally sustained. However, so far direction given to Devang Shah to pay the said maintenance amount to Nalini Shah, the same is legally sustainable."

(emphasis supplied)

Thus, the appeal filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 before the 2nd

respondent is maintainable. As discussed supra, the petitioner has

expressed her readiness to deposit an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as ordered

by 3rd respondent vide order dated 24.01.2025.

5th respondent did not appear before 4th respondent pursuant to

the notice dated 10.02.2025 on 11.02.2025 to receive the said amount.

The petitioner herein appeared before 4th respondent and expressed

her willingness to deposit the said amount. Despite intimating the said

fact by 4th respondent to the 5th respondent, she did not appear before

4th respondent on 10.02.2025. Therefore, 4th respondent has adjourned

enquiry to 11.02.2025 to receive the said amount. The said fact was

informed to 5th respondent. Even then, she refused to appear before 4th

respondent. However, petitioner has submitted a representation dated

11.02.2025 stating that she is ready to deposit the said amount into the

account of the 5th respondent, as directed by 3rd respondent or else she

is also ready to transfer the same to the account of 5th respondent if

she furnishes bank details. Considering the said aspects, vide order

dated 11.02.2025, 3rd respondent closed the enquiry.

25. Challenging the said order, respondent No.5 and 6 preferred

the said appeal. In fact, 6th respondent is not a party to the petition

filed by 5th respondent before 3rd respondent. He never appeared

before the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Even then, he has preferred the

appeal along with the 5th respondent before the 2nd respondent.

Without considering the said aspects, vide order dated 17.03.2025, 2nd

respondent held that the petitioner neglected 5th respondent and failed

to provide necessary support and therefore, the cancellation of the gift

settlement deed executed by 6th respondent in favour of the petitioner

is fully justified. Vide impugned order dated 17.03.2025, 2nd

respondent held that if the petitioner fails to pay the said amount of

Rs.5 Lakhs, capital punishment for six (6) months would be imposed

on the petitioner. In fact, 3rd respondent never held that if the

petitioner fails to pay the said amount, capital punishment would be

imposed on the petitioner. Even then, 2nd respondent in his order dated

17.03.2025 held that capital punishment would be imposed on the

petitioner. He has no power to impose capital punishment on the

petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 is beyond

the scope of Section 23(1) and 16 (1) of the Act. The said findings of

the 2nd respondent are contrary to the record and beyond the scope of

Section 23 (1) and 16(1) of the Act.

26. As discussed supra, 2nd respondent failed to consider the

aforesaid two pre-requisites of Section 23 (1) of the Act in the

impugned order dated 17.03.2025. Therefore, the impugned order

dated 17.03.2025 of 2nd respondent is contrary to the record and also

Section 23 (1) of the Act. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside and

accordingly set aside.

27. As discussed supra, the petitioner has already deposited the

amount of Rs.5 Lakhs in compliance with the order dated 1.04.2025 of

this Court. She has filed proof of the same. The said fact is not

disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 9.

28. It is relevant to note that the petitioner is daughter - in - law

of respondents 5 and 6. Respondent Nos.7 to 9 are their daughters.

Even according to the writ petitioner, after demise of her husband, 6th

respondent has executed a gift settlement deed in favour of her

daughter to an extent of Ac.5.24 guntas in Sy.No.497/1, Ac.4.97

guntas in Sy.No.498/10, Ac.0.05 guntas in Sy.No.32, Ac.0.32 guntas

in Sy.No.504/9 situated at Ibrahimpet Village, Nidmanoor Mandal,

Nalgonda District. She has let out the said property to third parties.

The amount paid by the lessees being utilized solely by respondent

Nos.5 and 6. The said fact is known to village elders. Writ petitioner

mentioned the said fact in the writ affidavit. According to her, there is

joint family property. Admittedly, the petitioner is a widow. Even

then, respondent Nos. 6 to 9 did not advert to the said aspects in the

counter filed by them. Without considering the said aspects, 2nd

respondent has passed the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 and the

same is liable to be set aside.

29. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated

17.03.2025 passed in AT/030/DWO/2025 of 2nd respondent is set

aside. However, the petitioner shall take care of welfare of

respondents 5 and 6.