SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(AP) 60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
M.P. Tej Babu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Children, Disabled And Senior Citizens (DW), Secretariat & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 2008 of 2016
Decided On : 04-03-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Unnam Muralidhar Rao, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Tribunal can also enforce right to receive maintenance against a transferee, out of estate of a senior citizen or part thereof which is transferred.

Headnote:Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 22 – In cases where transfer of any property by way of gift or otherwise was made by a senior citizen subject to condition that transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to such senior citizen and transferee refuses or fails to provide the same, Tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction to declare such transfer void at option of senior citizen concerned as the same shall be deemed to have been made by fraud, coercion or under undue influence – Tribunal can also enforce right to receive maintenance against a transferee, out of estate of a senior citizen or part thereof which is transferred if he has notice of right or if transfer is gratuitous but not against a transferee for consideration and without notice of such right.

       Result – Writ Petition allowed.

       

JUDGMENT :

This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to declare order dated 13-01-2016 in File No.B/3860/2015 of respondent No.2 whereby he has allowed the claim of respondent No.3 in respect of plot No.1205, Jubilee Hills Cooperative Society, Road No.60, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “the Act”) against the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

Respondent No.3 filed a claim before respondent No.2 under the Act with the following averments:

Respondent No.3 was the wife of one late M.P. Damodar and they have four children i.e., one son – the petitioner, and three daughters. The husband of respondent No.3 left behind sufficient property to meet her necessities during her old age. When respondent No.3 was staying with the petitioner, she underwent harrowing experiences. Because of the ill-treatment meted out to her by the petitioner, she was forced to stay with her daughter. The husband of respondent No.3 was a public servant and he acquired a property at Shanti Nagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad in the Government Gazetted Officer’s Co-operative Housing Society vide registered document No.1579/1960. The same was given on rent and the said property was yielding substantial rental income. To consolidate her rental earnings and the savings left behind by her husband, respondent No.3 acquired plot No.1205, at Road No.60, Jubilee Hills Cooperative Society, Hyderabad (for short “the subject property”) during the year 2003. During her stay with the petitioner, the latter assisted her in concluding the transaction pertaining to the subject property. As the petitioner was the custodian of the family income, all the income of respondent No.3 as well as the original sale deeds and link documents were held by him. In view of her old age, respondent No.3 intends to sell the assets and bestow the sale proceeds amongst her family members. After knowing her said intention, the petitioner attempted to threaten her daughter and grandchildren with dire consequences. With regard thereto, respondent No.3 lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station on 5-10-2015 seeking protection. However the police have not registered any FIR as they were acting in support of the petitioner. She approached this Court by filing W.P.No.35233 of 2015 seeking directions to the Police not to interfere with her personal liberty and property and obtained interim direction. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed application before respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject property and for custody of the title deeds.

On the contrary, it is the case of the petitioner that except alleging that she has experienced harrowing incidents, respondent No.3 has not stated the nature of the ill-treatment meted out to her by him. That the petitioner has great love and affection towards her mother i.e., respondent No.3; that their’s was a happy family with sufficient resources and that he never belittled respondent No.3 or acted against her wishes. That during the stay of the petitioner at Bahrain, Muscat and Dubai on his avocation and later in U.S.A., his father and respondent No.3 stayed with him all through comfortably. That his father died in the year 1993 intestate leaving behind an old house at Shanti Nagar, Masabtank, Hyderabad and being Class-I heirs, himself and respondent No.3 succeeded to the same. That at the time of the death of his father, Rs.10,000/- per month was being realised as rental income from the Shanti Nagar property from October 1985 till 1993 and during 1995-96, the petitioner and his mother shared the rental income of Rs.22,300/- equally and that respondent No.3 receives about Rs.18,000/- per month towards pension. That the house property at Shanti Nagar remained unoccupied from 1996 to 2006 and as the building was in a dilapidated condition, they decided to demolish the sam













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top