The cancellation of gift deeds under the Senior Citizens Act requires specific conditions to be met, which were not satisfied in this case.

ORDER :

C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J.

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking following relief:

“….to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the records relating to and in connection with the 3^rd Respondent's order dt. 12.01.2023 in Case No.H/2215/2022 and quash the same…”

2. It is stated that the respondent No.4, who is maternal grandfather of the petitioner has instituted a Case vide No.H/2215/2022 on the file of the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, under the provisions of the Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “Senior Citizens Act, 2007”) seeking to cancel the registered gift deed bearing document No.21857/2019 dated 20.12.2019 in respect of 5^th and 6^th floors of the building situated on Plot No.3 along with common share in the land and building covered by premises bearing Municipal No.1-111/1/17/JF/3, Sy.No.70, Jaagruti Foundations, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of petitioner and also registered gift deed bearing document No.21855/2019 dated 20.12.2019 in respect of 3^rd and 4^th floors of the building situated on Plot No.3 along with common share in the land and building covered by premises bearing Municipal No.1- 111/1/17/JF/3, Sy.No.70, Jaagruti Foundations, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of Mr. P. Harshal (brother of petitioner) making certain allegations against the father of the petitioners i.e, son-in-law of the respondent No.4 and that the purpose of gifting the properties in favour of donees proved fertile as they did not look after donor and his daughter. It is further stated that the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 12.01.2023 allowed the Case No.H/2215/2022 holding that the gift deed bearing document Nos.21855/2019 and 21857/2019 are liable to be cancelled and accordingly, directed the Joint Sub-Registrar-2, Ranga Reddy District, to take necessary action for cancellation of said gift deeds. It is the case of the petitioner that no notices were served on him or his brother as they are residing in USA. It is further case of the petitioner that Section 23(1) of Senior Citizens Act, is not at all attracted as the registered gift deeds do not contain any clause/covenants subjecting the gift to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another , [ (2022) 17 SCR 876 ] It is also case of the petitioner that once the right has been created in his favour, such right cannot be taken away without following due process of law and more particularly in the absence of applicability of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that after passing of the impugned order dated 12.01.2023, Respondent No.4 expired on 20.10.2023, and if any person claiming to be his legal heir disputes the registered gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioner and his brother, such person must avail appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court, as the legal heirs of the deceased executant do not have any right to dispute the gift deed in the absence of the executant himself contesting the matter.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.8 inter alia stating that Respondent No.4 passed away on 20.10.2023, leaving behind four children as his legal heirs. It is also stated that the wife of Respondent No.4 predeceased him. According to the respondent, the property held by the Respondent No.4 would naturally devolve upon his children, and the petitioner, being fully aware of this fact, has deliberately and wantonly filed the present writ petition without impleading the legal heirs as necessary parties, and that too after a lapse of nine months. It is further stated th