Telangana High Court
Smt. Vanga Kanaka Laxmi vs The State Of Telangana on 16 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.25119 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the Memo in
Rc.No.108 of 2024 dated 08.07.2024 issued by the
respondent No.5 in refraining to cancel the cancellation
documents bearing Nos.5511/2024, 5512/2024,
5513/2024 dated 18.06.2024 in pursuance of the order
passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.B/120/2024
dated 15.06.2024 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri J. Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the
respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Smt N.V.R. Rajya Laxmi, learned
counsel for the respondent No.6.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent No.6, who is the mother of petitioner, has
SK, J
W.P.No.25119 of 2024
executed three Gift Deeds bearing Nos.1951/2022,
1952/2022 and 1953/2022 dated 03.03.2022 in favour of
the petitioner and the scheduled property was delivered to
her and she was in possession of the said property as
absolute owner. The respondent No.6 at the behest of her
son i.e., respondent No.7, filed application before the
respondent No.4 for cancellation of Gift Deeds executed in
favour of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 without
proper appreciation of the facts has unilaterally issued
proceedings for cancellation of the Gift Deeds. The
petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3 and the
respondent No.3 after examining the respondent No.6 and
perusing the facts has set aside the order passed by the
respondent No.4 vide Appeal No.B/120/2024
dated 15.06.2024. He submits that even after disposal of
appeal before the respondent No.3, the respondent No.5
has accepted the cancellation deeds executed by the
respondent No.6 and registered the cancellation of Gift
SK, J
Deeds. When the petitioner approached the respondent
No.5 for setting aside the cancellation deeds as the orders
of the respondent No.4 were set aside by the respondent
No.3, the respondent No.5 has issued the impugned Memo
in RC.No.108/2024 dated 08.07.2024 stating that he has
no jurisdiction to cancel the registered cancellation deeds
and he has not acted in pursuance of the orders passed by
the respondent No.3.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits
that once the order passed by the respondent No.4 was set
aside by the respondent No.3, the registration of the
cancellation deeds are not permissible and the respondent
No.5 without issuing any notice to the petitioner has
registered the cancellation deeds, which is illegal and
arbitrary and requested to direct the respondent No.5 to
cancel the cancellation deeds by allowing the writ petition.
SK, J
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the
following Judgments;
1. H. Deepika vs. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal1
2. Matangi Premalatha vs. State of Telangana2.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 basing on
the counter submits that the respondent No.6 has executed
three gift deeds in favour of the petitioner on
misrepresentation that those documents are for getting
senior citizen pension and her photo and signature/thumb
impression are mandatory for getting senior citizen pension
and as she was taking care such as medication,
maintenance, love and affection etc. After execution of
those deeds, the petitioner stopped looking after the
respondent No.6 and necked her out of her house.
Thereafter, the respondent No.7 being the son of the
2022 SCC OnLine TS 654
2023 SCC OnLine TS 397
SK, J
respondent No.6 has enquired about execution of
documents in the office of Sub-Registrar and then, the
respondent No.6 filed petition for cancellation of gift deeds
executed in favour of the petitioner before the respondent
No.4. She submits that the respondent No.4 after issuing
notice to all the parties and after hearing both sides,
cancelled the gift deeds vide Proc.No.C/256/2024 dated
18.04.2024, against which the petitioner filed appeal and
the same was allowed vide Appeal No.B/120/2024 dated
15.06.2024 by setting aside the order passed by the
respondent No.4 dated 18.04.2024.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 further
submits that as per Section 16 of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (For short
'the Act, 2007) any senior citizen or a parent has right to
file appeal and thus the respondent No.3 has no
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner
and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
SK, J
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 relied
upon the following Judgment;
1. Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit 3
9. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record,
this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute
with regard to the relationship between the petitoner and
the respondent No.6 as daughter and mother and also
there is no dispute with regard to execution of the Gift
Deeds by the respondent No.6 in favour of the petitioner in
Document Nos.1951/2022, 1952/2022 and 1953/2022
dated 03.03.2022.
10. In view of the disputes between the petitoner and
the respondent Nos.6 and 7, the respondent No.6 filed a
petition before the respondent No.4 under the Act, 2007 for
cancellation of the Gift Deeds executed by her in favour of
the petitioner. After conducting enquiry, the respondent
(2025) 2 SCC 787
SK, J
No.4 issued order in Proc.No.C/256/2024
dated 18.04.2024 directing to cancel the registered Gift
Deed Nos.1951/2022, 1952/2022 and 1953/2022
dated 03.03.2022. Aggrieved by the said orders, the
petitioner herein filed appeal before the respondent No.3.
The appellate Tribunal, after calling both the petitoner as
well as the respondent No.6 in person, examined the
respondent No.6 and passed order in Appeal
No.B/120/2024 dated 15.06.2024. As per the statement of
the respondent No.6, she did not want any money for her
daily maintenance and she is well being and her statement
was video recorded. In view of the statement made by the
respondent No.6, the respondent No.3 held that if the
respondent No.6 wants maintenance in future, she can
approach the Revenue Divisional Office or District Collector
and Magistrate for maintenance amount or her grievance
and also held that the order passed by the respondent No.4
SK, J
dated 18.04.2024 does not pertain to the guidelines of the
Act, 2007 and set aside the same.
11. The order passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal
No.B/120/2024 dated 15.06.2024 has become final and
not challenged by the respondent No.6. While it being so, in
pursuance to the order passed by the respondent No.4 in
Proc.No.C/256/2024 dated 18.04.2024, the respondent
No.5 permitted the respondent No.6 to execute the
cancellation of registered deeds in Document
Nos.5511/2024, 5512/202 and 5513/2024
on 18.06.2024. It clearly shows that at the time of
execution of cancellation of deeds on 18.06.2024, the order
of the respondent No.4 dated 18.04.2024 was set aside by
the appellate authority i.e., the respondent No.3 in Appeal
No.B/120/2024 dated 15.06.2024. In view of the disposal
of the appeal in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner made
a representation along with the orders in appeal to the
respondent No.5 for cancellation of cancellation of Gift
SK, J
Deeds. In response to the same, the respondent No.5 has
issued the impugned Memo in RC No.108/2024
dated 08.07.2024 stating that he has no jurisdiction to
cancel any document without any Court orders.
12. In the instant case, the respondent No.5, basing
on the orders of the respondent No.4 dated 18.04.2024
registered the cancellation of gift deeds on 18.06.2024, as
on that date, there is no valid order from the competent
authority and the basis for cancelation of the registered
documents was set aside by the appellate authority. The
respondent No.5 without application of mind and without
taking into account of the orders of the District Collector
has passed impugned order and stated that there is a
provision for appeal against the orders of the District
Collector and he has no jurisdiction for cancellation of the
registered cancellation deeds.
SK, J
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent No.6 is that the petitioner being daughter has
no right to file appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007.
The said contention was considered by this Court and held
that the children can avail the appeal under Section 16 of
the Act, 2007 in H. Deepika's case (1 supra) and Matangi
Premalatha's case (2 supra). Moreover in the instant case,
the petitioner filed W.P.No.12971 of 2024 before this Court
questioning the order of the respondent No.4 herein in
No.C/256/2024 dated 18.04.2024 and the same was
disposed of on 13.05.2024 directing her to approach the
appellate authority. Subsequently, the petitioner
approached the respondent No.3 and filed appeal under
Section 16 of the Act, 2007. In view of the same, the said
contention of the respondent No.6 cannot be taken into
account.
14. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for
the respondent No.6 in Urmila Dixit's case (3 supra), is not
SK, J
apply to the facts of the present case. There is no dispute
with regard to the power or the authority under the Act,
2007 in directing to cancel the registered documents. In
the instant case facts are that in spite of the appellate
authority order, the Sub-Registrar has not taken any
steps to cancel the cancellation of the documents
registered basing on the preliminary authority order and
in view of the same, the said Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court relied on by the respondent No.6 is not
apply to the facts of the present case.
15. In the above circumstances, it clearly shows that
the respondent No.5 has not followed due procedure while
registering the cancellation of Gift Deeds and issued the
impugned Memo stating that he has no jurisdiction to
cancel the registered cancellation deeds. The respondent
No.5 has to take into account the orders of the respondent
No.3 and has to cancel the cancellation of Gift Deeds
registered in pursuance of the orders of the respondent
SK, J
No.4. In view of the same, the impugned Memo issued by
the respondent No.5 is liable to be set aside and the
respondent No.5 has to cancel the cancellation of deeds
executed by the respondent No.6 in Document
Nos.5511/2024, 5512/2024 and 5513/2024
dated 18.06.2024.
16. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is
allowed by setting aside the impugned Memo in RC.
No.108/2024 dated 08.07.2024 and the respondent No.5 is
directed to cancel the cancellation of registered Gift Deeds
executed by the respondent No.6 bearing
Nos.5511/2024, 5512/2024 and 5513/2024 dated
18.06.2024 forthwith. No order as to costs.
17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date:16.09.2025.
sj
