1. Writ petition challenging order cancelling gift deed under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2279
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK, J.
C. Srinivas - Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15033 of 2025
Decided On : 18-09-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C. Hari Preeth.
For the Respondent:Mohammed Imran Khan (Additional Advocate General); N. Vashishta Venkateswarlu.
For the Petitioner: C. Hari Preeth.
For the Respondent:Mohammed Imran Khan (Additional Advocate General); N. Vashishta Venkateswarlu.
Under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, a gift deed can be cancelled due to non-maintenance even if the deed contains no express maintenance condition, as such conditions may be implied by the conduct of the parties.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23 - Cancellation of gift deed - Condition of maintenance - Express vs. Implied conditions - Provision is beneficial legislation and must receive a liberal construction - Non-mentioning of a maintenance condition in a gift deed does not absolve the transferee from the duty to maintain the transferor to keep the deed in force - The condition for transfer can be either express or implied; if no express recital exists, the authority must look at circumstances and conduct to determine if the intention of the donor was to revoke. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Opportunity of hearing - Where a party has received notices and submitted representations requesting deferment of proceedings, a claim that no opportunity of hearing was provided is unsustainable - Filing multiple writ petitions to delay proceedings does not justify a finding of violation of natural justice when reasonable opportunity was afforded. (Para 12)
(C) Equity and Conduct - Misrepresentation of court orders - Submitting an edited version of a court order by removing the first page and misleading administrative authorities constitutes fraud and misrepresentation, which warrants the dismissal of the petition. (Paras 14-17)
Facts of the case:
A senior citizen executed a gift deed in favor of a relative. Subsequently, the senior citizen sought cancellation of the deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging a lack of proper maintenance. After the matter was remanded by a second appellate authority, the first appellate authority set aside the primary authority's order and cancelled the gift deed. The transferee challenged this order via a writ petition, contending that the gift deed lacked an express maintenance condition and that the order was passed without a proper hearing.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the law does not require a specific stipulation of maintenance within the deed itself to invoke Section 23, as such conditions are often implied by human conduct and affection. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner had been given sufficient notice of the hearings and had intentionally misled the sub-registrar by submitting a tampered copy of a previous court order.
Issues: Whether the absence of a written maintenance condition in a gift deed prevents its cancellation under the Senior Citizens Act and whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 23(1) of the Act allows for the cancellation of a gift deed based on implied conditions of maintenance, regardless of express recitals in the deed. The court further ruled that the act of tampering with a court order to mislead an authority constitutes fraud, thereby negating the petitioner's claim to relief.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- family law
- property law
- practice and procedure
- statutory interpretation
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- mandamus (Para 1)
-
writ jurisdiction
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over implied maintenance condition in gift deed; opportunity of hearing; alleged antedated order and procedural irregularities. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Beneficial legislation must be liberally construed; non-maintenance per se invokes implied condition for revocation under Section 23. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Express condition in gift deed not required; non-maintenance of senior citizen per se invokes implied condition under Section 23 of Act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
5. Writ petition dismissed for lack of merit; no costs. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. Is an express condition in a gift deed necessary to revoke it under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act?
No. An express condition is not required; non-maintenance of the senior citizen per se invokes the implied condition for revocation. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What legal principle governs the interpretation of beneficial legislation like the Senior Citizens Act?
Beneficial legislation must receive a liberal construction in consonance with the objectives the Act seeks to serve. (Para 8 )
8. Can the condition for maintenance under Section 23 be implied from conduct rather than a recital in the deed?
Yes. The condition is referable to the conduct of the transferee prior to and after execution, not a specific recital. (Para 9 )
9. Does the court consider disputed questions of fact regarding development of property in such petitions?
No. Such issues raise disputed questions of fact and the remedy lies elsewhere. (Para 18 )
10. What constitutes misleading an authority and playing fraud regarding a court order?
Removing the first page of a court order copy and making a representation to a non-party authority amounts to fraud. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
ORDER :
Pulla Karthik, J.
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“…Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Case N. 61/E/2023 Dated 22.04.2025 served on the petitioner on 30.04.2025 whereby allowing the appeal of the 4th respondent and declaring the gift deed vide document no. 6610 of 2018 dated 06.04.2018 executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner as null and void as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 and consequently by setting aside the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to give effective to the impugned order by interfering with a peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property mentioned in the gift deed dated 06.04.2018 ….”
2) Heard Sri C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri N.Vashishta Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially respondent No.4, who is none other than the grand father of writ petitioner, has approached the Primary Authority under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, viz., Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 06.04.2018 executed by him (respondent No.4) in favour of the writ petitioner and also to restore possession of respondent No.4. After considering the entire material on record, the Primary Authority passed order dated 20.12.2022 directing respondent No.4 to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority viz., District Collector. Vide order dated 06.07.2023 the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal vide Appeal Case No.61/E/2023 confirming the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Primary Authority. However, the further appeal preferred by respondent No.4 was entertained by the Second Appellate Authority viz., Commissioner/Director under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (in short ‘Act of 2007’) and the Rules made thereunder, even without therebeing any application for condonation of delay.
3.1) Learned counsel has further contended that the Second Appellate Authority issued notice dated 10.03.2025, which was served on the petitioner on 13.03.2025, informing the date of hearing of the second appeal as 18.03.2025 at 2.00 pm. Though the petitioner appeared on the said date before the Second Appellate Authority, he was not allowed to be represented by his counsel. As such, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8647 of 2025 before this Court on 19.03.2025 wherein this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 has granted stay of all further proceedings pending before the Second Appellate Authority. However, the Second Appellate Authority passed order dated 18.03.2025 with antedate in the further Second Appeal and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Authority viz., District Collector for fresh enquiry as per law, even without causing any enquiry or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel has further contended that the First Appellate Authority without reference to the order of the Second Appellate Authority, has entertained the re-appeal filed by respondent No.4 and issued the notice dated 28.03.2025 to the petitioner to appear on 02.04.2025. On the said date, the petitioner has appeared before the First Appellate Authority and requested to keep the proceedings in abeyance till disposal of W.P.No.8647 of 2025 and also submitted a representation dated 02.04.2025 to that effect. Yet, the First Appellate Authority has passed the order dated 22.04.2025 behind the back of the petitioner duly setting aside the order of th
