Smt. B. Nalini vs The State Of Telnagana
2026 Latest Caselaw 4 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. B. Nalini vs The State Of Telnagana on 25 March, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

              WRIT PETITION No.4405 & 8592 of 2019

                         DATED: 25.03.2026

Between:

B.Nalini                                         ...Petitioner

                                AND

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.                 ...Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

W.P.No.4405 of 2019 is filed to call for the records in Case

No.H/2524/2018, dated 18.12.2018, pending before the respondent

No.2 filed by respondent No.3 and consequently, to set aside the

same.

2. W.P.No.8592 of 2019 is filed to call for the records in Case

No.H/2524/2018, dated 25.02.2019 of respondent No.2 and

consequently to set aside the same and also to declare the revocation

of Gift Settlement deed No.2289 of 2019 registered by respondent

No.4 as null and void.

LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

3. Since the parties in both the writ petitions are one and the

same and the issue is interlinked, both the writ petitions are heard

together and are being disposed of by this Common Order.

4. Heard Sri A.P.Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Ch.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women

Development & Child Welfare.

5. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that

petitioner is the owner and possessor of the house bearing No.5-45,

situated in Plot No.743 of Sriram Nagar Colony, Puppalaguda,

Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as

'subject property'), having acquired the same under registered

unconditional Gift Deed No.3483 of 2011, dated 28.04.2011,

executed by her father-respondent No.3; that her name was mutated

in the municipal records in respect of subject property and she has

been paying property tax, electricity and water consumption charges

regularly; that due to misunderstandings between petitioner's mother

and father-respondent No.3, petitioner's mother has filed an

application vide O.P.No.2311 of 2018, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 r/w. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act,

1984, seeking divorce against respondent No.3; that respondent No.3

at the behest of petitioner's younger sister filed an application under LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act, 2007'), before the respondent

No.2 seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed executed in favour of

petitioner herein; that respondent No.2 had issued notice dated

18.12.2018, calling upon the petitioner to appear before respondent

No.2 and the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.2 on

18.02.2019, however, respondent No.2 insisted the petitioner to

cancel the Gift Deed executed in her favour and also to withdraw the

divorce and criminal complaints filed against respondent No.3.

Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed W.P.No.4405 of 2019.

6. This Court vide Order dated 05.03.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in

W.P.No.4405 of 2019, granted interim stay of cancellation of

registered gift deed dated 28.04.2011, however, the respondent No.2

vide Order dated 25.02.2019 in Case No.H/2524/2018, cancelled the

gift settlement deed No.2289 of 2019, dated 28.04.2011, unilaterally.

Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed W.P.No.8592 of 2019.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that

respondent No.2 passed the impugned proceedings dated

25.02.2019, cancelling the registered gift settlement deed No.3483 of

2011, dated 28.11.2011, without issuing any notice and affording an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; that respondent No.3 is LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

drawing a pension of more than Rs.60,000/- per month, therefore, he

cannot seek any relief under the provisions of the Act, 2007; that the

Gift Settlement Deed dated 28.11.2011, does not contain pre-

condition of maintenance of respondent No.3 by the petitioner,

therefore, the respondent No.2 committed error in passing impugned

Order; that petitioner did not attend the hearing and has not agreed

for cancellation of the gift deed, however, the respondent No.2

cancelled the gift deed by way of 'consent Order' stating that

respondents therein have given consent for cancelling the gift deed

subject to conditions, therefore, prayed to allow the writ petitions.

8. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 by referring to the

counter would submit that respondent No.3 has constructed the

subject property by taking loan from the bank and gifted the same to

the petitioner under registered gift deed No.3483 of 2011, dated

28.11.2011, with a hope that petitioner would take care of him; that

the petitioner in collusion with her mother, necked out the

respondent No.3 from the subject property in the month of October,

2018 and rented the part of subject property to third parties; that

respondent No.3 filed an application before respondent No.2 invoking

Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007, for cancellation of gift deed; that

respondent No.2 heard both the parties and vide Order dated LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

25.02.2019, cancelled the gift deed No.3483 of 2011, dated

28.11.2011, since the respondents therein have given consent for

cancellation of gift deed; that pursuant to the said Order, on

07.03.2019, respondent No.4 has revoked the gift settlement deed

No.3483 of 2011, executed in favour of the petitioner.

9. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that

petitioner's mother has filed an application vide O.P.No.2311 of 2018,

before Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,

under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, against respondent

No.3 seeking divorce and the same was decreed by the Trial Court

vide Order dated 09.11.2024, directing the respondent No.3 herein to

pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner's mother.

He further submitted that though, the respondent No.3 was getting a

pension of Rs.65,000/- per month, he has to pay a sum of

Rs.25,000/- per month towards rent, since the petitioner necked him

out from the subject property and also pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per

month to petitioner's wife towards maintenance. Apart from that,

respondent No.3 was suffering with old age ailments and is unable to

bear the medical expenses. He further submitted that he was

residing in a rented house and was unable to maintain himself,

therefore, approached respondent No.2 for cancellation of gift deed LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

executed by him by invoking Section 23(1) of the Act, 2007 and the

respondent No.2 by duly following the procedure and after hearing

both the parties, had passed the impugned Order dated 25.02.2019,

cancelling the gift settlement deed dated 28.11.2011; and that the

writ petition is devoid of any merit, therefore, prayed to dismiss the

writ petition.

10. Since the learned Counsel for petitioner specifically contended

that the petitioner did not appear before respondent No.2 nor gave

consent for passing impugned proceedings, this Court called for

original file of the proceedings of respondent No.2 and the same is

placed before the Court by learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue.

11. Perusal of the original record discloses that on 18.02.2019,

petitioner, respondent No.3 along with their respective Counsels were

present before respondent No.2 and a consensus has been arrived at

between the parties, as per which, petitioner herein agreed for

cancellation of gift deed No.3483 of 2011, dated 28.11.2011,

however, on certain conditions that:

i) respondent No.3 shall not alienate the subject property during his life time;

LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

ii) the subject property would be shared by petitioner and her sister equally after the death of respondent No.3; and

iii) respondent No.3 shall take care of his wife i.e., mother of petitioner in all aspects i.e., physically and mentally as well as day to day needs.

It is also recorded that both the parties have agreed to file their

respective affidavits to that effect. The proceedings dated 18.02.2019,

were signed by petitioner, respondent No.3 and Shoba Kumari i.e.,

mother of petitioner and wife of respondent No.3, therefore, the

contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 cancelled the gift

settlement deed unilaterally in her absence without issuing any

notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to her is

untenable.

12. Pursuant to proceedings dated 18.02.2019, respondent No.3

executed security bond dated 19.02.2019 as under:-

"i) I shall look after the welfare and health of my wife B.Shoba Kumari in all aspects.

ii) I undertake to give an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees Only) per month for her pocket and other expenses apart from house hold expenses by collecting the rents of the building/premises.

iii) I will not quarrel with my wife at any point of time even though she provokes me.

iv) I shall not dispose my properties without consent of my family.

LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

v) I will take care of my wife on all aspects and I will pay the property taxes, current bills, water bills etc. relating to the maintenance of the building, and I shall bear all the costs.

vi) I will cooperate to lead happy and pious life subject to cooperation from the other side."

However, it appears that petitioner and her mother i.e., B.Shoba

Kumari, did not submit affidavits contrary to undertaking/consent

given in the open Court, therefore, respondent No.2 passed the

impugned Order dated 25.02.2019, by duly taking into consideration

pleadings and material placed on record. It is pertinent to note that

in the impugned Order, respondent No.2 specifically observed that

petitioner herein is interested only in the properties of respondent

No.3, but not the welfare of her father and encouraged her mother to

live separately and to file divorce petition, which shows the attitude

of the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2 passed the impugned

Order cancelling the registered gift deed dated 28.11.2011, however,

directed the respondent No.3 not to alienate the subject property

without consent of his family members and he should take care of

welfare and health of his wife, pay monthly maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- to her and shall also pay property tax, electricity bills

and water bills etc., of subject property and ensure that his wife shall

lead a happy life and should also bear all medical expenses and shall

not quarrel with his wife.

LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

13. In so far as, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned

order was passed in violation of the interim order granted by this

Court is concerned, admittedly, the interim order was passed on

05.03.2019, whereas the impugned order cancelling the gift deed was

passed on 25.02.2019, i.e., prior to granting of interim Order by this

Court, therefore the contention of the petitioner has no legs to stand.

Though, the gift settlement deed dated 28.11.2011 does not contain

specific condition regarding maintenance of respondent No.3, by

petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner herself consented to

the cancellation of the gift deed subject to certain conditions, which

is evident from the proceedings dated 18.02.2019 of respondent

No.2, she cannot now be permitted to turn back and re-agitate the

issue by way of the present writ petitions.

14. In the light of above discussion, the writ petitions are devoid of

any merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ

petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY DATE: 25.03.2026 Tri LNA,J W.P.Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

WRIT PETITION Nos.4405 & 8592 of 2019

DATE: 25.03.2026

TRI