The absence of maintenance conditions in a gift deed negates the applicability of Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act, leading to the annulment of any revocation actions based on such conditions.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings No.338/DWO/FRO/2023, dated 23.05.2023 issued by respondent No.2, thereby confirming the orders passed by respondent No.3 in revoking the Gift Settlement Deed bearing No.2045 of 2021, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further, to direct respondent No.4 not to entertain any sale transaction in respect of the schedule property by placing the same in the prohibited list.

2. Heard Ms. Janaki, learned counsel representing Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri B.Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt R.Swarnalatha, learned counsel-on-record for respondent No.5.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No.5, who is maternal grandmother of petitioner, has approached respondent No.3- Primary Authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (for brevity hereinafter referred to as “the Senior Citizens Act”), i.e., respondent No.3 herein, by filing Case No.H/1601/2022 seeking cancellation of the Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 15.02.2021 executed by her in favour of the petitioner. After considering the entire material on record, respondent No.3-Primary Authority passed an order, dated 31.12.2022, holding that the Gift Settlement Deed dated 15.02.2021 is liable to be cancelled and directed respondent No.4 to take necessary steps accordingly. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.4 has revoked the said Gift Settlement Deed, vide Revocation of Gift Settlement, bearing document No.291/2023, dated 09.01.2023. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2022 of respondent No.3, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority- respondent No.2 and the said appeal was disposed of, rejecting to grant stay of the orders passed by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Gift Settlement Deed dated 15.02.2021 does not have any pre-condition of maintenance of respondent No.5 by the petitioner and after execution of the said Gift Settlement Deed, the petitioner has developed the property, which was a vacant plot, into a two-storied building with his own funds and by obtaining loans worth Rs.40 lakhs. He further submitted that petitioner requested respondent No.5 to reside in the ground floor of the house, but respondent No.5 wanted a separate room for herself and as such, as per her desire, the petitioner constructed a pent house with all amenities and facilities. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner was targeted by the other family members, through respondent No.5, for monetary reasons and due to increase in land value.

5. By contending as supra, learned counsel prayed this Court to allow this Writ Petition.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment, dated 08.04.2025, of this Court in W.P.No.30278 of 2023 ( P.Rohit Saurya Vs. The State of Telangana ) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi 2022 SCC Online SC 1684.

7. In P.Rohit Saurya’s case (cited supra), this Court held that the requirements under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act are not satisfied for cancellation of the registered gift deeds executed by respondent No.4 and hence, respondent No.3 therein had no jurisdiction to cancel the gift deeds and accordingly, set aside the order passed by re