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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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.
6
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.
7
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.
8
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
9expectation 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.
1
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
1
2025 INSC 20
10
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
2
MANU/TN/5114/2023
11
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
12maintain 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
3
2015 SCC OnLine Ker 33530
13
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.
4
2020 SCC Online Ker 4080
5
Judgment dated 06.03.2025 in W.A.No.3582 and CMP Nos.27835 and 27838 of 2024
14
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 a6
2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1068
15senior 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:
16
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
17
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
18
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.
19
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.
20
Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also
stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date:07-08-2025
Vvr
[ad_1]
Source link