extent of Ac.3.00 Gts in Sy No.614, situated at Udithyal Village of Balanagar Mandal in favour of the Respondent Sri. Kummari Ragavender S/o Bheemaiah.

In view of the above circumstances as the Respondents are not looking of the Petitioner (and as the subject property was transferred to the Respondents by the Petitioners. As such the request made by the Petitioner is hereby considered and it is ordered that: -

As per Sec (23) of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act 2007, it is hereby ordered for cancellation of Sale Deed No.192 of 2020 executed by Respondent Sri.Kummari Bheemaiah S/o Ramaswami in favour of Sri.Kummari Ragavender S/o Bheemaiah Respondent”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed without taking into consideration, the fact that the registered sale deed is executed for valid consideration and the said transfer does fall within the ambit of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, “the Act”), which is extracted as hereunder:-

“Section 23(1) of the Act: 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”.

5. He further contends that the Sale Deed dated 17.12.2020 demonstrates that a consideration of Rs.2,99,880/- was paid by the vendee and no such condition precedent is stipulated therein with regard to maintaining respondent No.4. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chikkara Vs. Ramti Devi, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684]

6. He further contends that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate such questions of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence in respect of a registered Sale Deed. Hence, relying on the aforecited decision, he seeks to allow the Writ Petition.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contends that notice has been served upon respondent No.5 vide No.L/2737/2025 dated 03.11.2025 directing respondent No.5 to appear before this Court on 12.11.2025 at 10:00 A.M. in person or through an Advocate. But none appeared on behalf of respondent No.5. Therefore, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.3 has rightly and appropriately passed the impugned order.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 contends that the petitioner ought to have taken proper care of respondent No.5; that the petitioner had taken respondent No.5 to the registration Office on a pretext of transferring Acs.00.20 gts but got transferred an extent of Acs.3.00 gts in Sy.No.614 of Uditiyala Village, Balanagar Mandal. Relying on Section 8 of the Act, which is extracted hereunder, he contends that respondent No.3 is vested with authority to render the impugned order :-

“

8. Summary procedure in case of inquiry

1. In holding any inquiry under section 5, the Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it deems fit.

2. The Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

3. Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf, the Tribunal may, for the, purpose of adjudicating and deciding upon any