The provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, apply only to deeds executed post-enactment with specific conditions, which were not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

The 1^st appellant herein had gifted Ac.7.21 cents of land, in Chagaleru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District, to the 5^th respondent herein, who is her son, by way of a registered deed of gift vide document No.817/1999, dated 21.07.1999. The 1^st Appellant has a daughter, who is the 2^nd Appellant herein and two other sons.

2. The 5^th respondent had subsequently filed O.S.No.97 of 2021 before the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, against his two brothers and sisters for an injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over the said land. It appears that a temporary injunction, dated 08.07.2021 in I.A.No.220 of 2021 in O.S.No.97 of 2021 was also granted and the suit is pending.

3. The 1^st appellant, had approached the 2^nd respondent herein, under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, [for short “the Act, 2007”] for a declaration that the deed of gift executed by her in favour of the 5^th respondent should be cancelled as he was not looking after her.

4. The 5^th respondent, after receipt of notice of this petition, had filed his response stating that he was taking good care of the Appellant, who is his mother and that the said complaint was filed due to undue pressure from the brothers and sisters of the 5^th respondent, who are the children of the 1^st appellant. The 5^th respondent also took the stand that the application was not maintainable in view of the fact that the document had been registered even prior to the Act coming into force and further that the necessary statements in the gift deed that it was been transferred with the condition that the 5^th respondent would provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the 1^st appellant are not available in the deed of gift.

5. The 2^nd respondent passed an Order, dated 13.09.2021, declaring the registered gift deed executed by the 1^st appellant in favour of the 5^th respondent as void with a consequential direction to the 3^rd respondent-District Registrar, Anantapur to cancel the said document.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order, dated 13.09.2021, the 5^th respondent approached this Court by way of W.P.No.17356 of 2022. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing both sides, by Judgment dated 12.12.2024, had disposed of the Writ Petition setting aside the Order of the 2^nd respondent. However, liberty was given to the 1^st appellant to approach the appropriate forum, if she intends to cancel the deed of gift.

7. The Learned Single Judge took the view that Section 23 of the Act, 2007 would be applicable only where the gift deed was executed after the commencement of the Act with a condition that the transferee would provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. The Learned Single Judge had held that the provisions of the Act, 2007 would not be applicable as neither condition had been satisfied.

8. Aggrieved by the said Order of the Learned Single Judge, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal.

9. Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

10. Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment dated 02.01.2025, in Civil Appeal No.10927 of 2024, in similar circumstances upheld the cancellation of the gift deed and had in fact quashed the gift deed. He would submit that the said Judgment would apply to the facts of the present case also.

11. In the Judgment cited by Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the appellants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India noticed that the transferee in the said case had executed a promissory note assuring the transferor that he would serve her and her husband during their lifetime and that the deed of gift can taken back if he fails to fulfill such an obligation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also noticed that the deed of gift itse