Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1040 (TS)

Vanga Kanaka Laxmi v. State of Telangana

2025-09-16

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K.Sarath, J. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the Memo in Rc.No.108 of 2024 dated 08.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.5 in refraining to cancel the cancellation documents bearing Nos.5511/2024, 5512/2024, 5513/2024 dated 18.06.2024 in pursuance of the order passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.B/120/2024 dated 15.06.2024 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri J. Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Smt N.V.R. Rajya Laxmi, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6, who is the mother of petitioner, has executed three Gift Deeds bearing Nos.1951/2022, 1952/2022 and 1953/2022 dated 03.03.2022 in favour of the petitioner and the scheduled property was delivered to her and she was in possession of the said property as absolute owner. The respondent No.6 at the behest of her son i.e., respondent No.7, filed application before the respondent No.4 for cancellation of Gift Deeds executed in favour of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 without proper appreciation of the facts has unilaterally issued proceedings for cancellation of the Gift Deeds. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 after examining the respondent No.6 and perusing the facts has set aside the order passed by the respondent No.4 vide Appeal No.B/120/2024 dated 15.06.2024. He submits that even after disposal of appeal before the respondent No.3, the respondent No.5 has accepted the cancellation deeds executed by the respondent No.6 and registered the cancellation of Gift Deeds. When the petitioner approached the respondent No.5 for setting aside the cancellation deeds as the orders of the respondent No.4 were set aside by the respondent No.3, the respondent No.5 has issued the impugned Memo in RC.No.108/2024 dated 08.07.2024 stating that he has no jurisdiction to cancel the registered cancellation deeds and he has not acted in pursuance of the orders passed by the respondent No.3. 4. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the order passed by the respondent No.4 was set aside by the respondent No.3, the registration of the cancellation deeds are not permissible and the respondent No.5 without issuing any notice to the petitioner has registered the cancellation deeds, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to direct the respondent No.5 to cancel the cancellation deeds by allowing the writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments; 1. H. Deepika vs. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 654 2. Matangi Premalatha vs. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 397 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 basing on the counter submits that the respondent No.6 has executed three gift deeds in favour of the petitioner on misrepresentation that those documents are for getting senior citizen pension and her photo and signature/thumb impression are mandatory for getting senior citizen pension and as she was taking care such as medication, maintenance, love and affection etc. After execution of those deeds, the petitioner stopped looking after the respondent No.6 and necked her out of her house. Thereafter, the respondent No.7 being the son of the respondent No.6 has enquired about execution of documents in the office of Sub-Registrar and then, the respondent No.6 filed petition for cancellation of gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioner before the respondent No.4. She submits that the respondent No.4 after issuing notice to all the parties and after hearing both sides, cancelled the gift deeds vide Proc.No.C/256/2024 dated 18.04.2024, against which the petitioner filed appeal and the same was allowed vide Appeal No.B/120/2024 dated 15.06.2024 by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 18.04.2024. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 further submits that as per Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (For short ‘the Act, 2007) any senior citizen or a parent has right to file appeal and thus the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 relied upon the following Judgment; 1. Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit, (2025) 2 SCC 787 9. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 relied upon the following Judgment; 1. Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit, (2025) 2 SCC 787 9. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitoner and the respondent No.6 as daughter and mother and also there is no dispute with regard to execution of the Gift Deeds by the respondent No.6 in favour of the petitioner in Document Nos.1951/2022, 1952/2022 and 1953/2022 dated 03.03.2022. 10. In view of the disputes between the petitoner and the respondent Nos.6 and 7, the respondent No.6 filed a petition before the respondent No.4 under the Act, 2007 for cancellation of the Gift Deeds executed by her in favour of the petitioner. After conducting enquiry, the respondentNo.4 issued order in Proc.No.C/256/2024 dated 18.04.2024 directing to cancel the registered Gift Deed Nos.1951/2022, 1952/2022 and 1953/2022 dated 03.03.2022. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner herein filed appeal before the respondent No.3. The appellate Tribunal, after calling both the petitoner as well as the respondent No.6 in person, examined the respondent No.6 and passed order in Appeal No.B/120/2024 dated 15.06.2024. As per the statement of the respondent No.6, she did not want any money for her daily maintenance and she is well being and her statement was video recorded. In view of the statement made by the respondent No.6, the respondent No.3 held that if the respondent No.6 wants maintenance in future, she can approach the Revenue Divisional Office or District Collector and Magistrate for maintenance amount or her grievance and also held that the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 18.04.2024 does not pertain to the guidelines of the Act, 2007 and set aside the same. 11. The order passed by the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.B/120/2024 dated 15.06.2024 has become final and not challenged by the respondent No.6. While it being so, in pursuance to the order passed by the respondent No.4 in Proc.No.C/256/2024 dated 18.04.2024, the respondent No.5 permitted the respondent No.6 to execute the cancellation of registered deeds in Document Nos.5511/2024, 5512/202 and 5513/2024 on 18.06.2024. While it being so, in pursuance to the order passed by the respondent No.4 in Proc.No.C/256/2024 dated 18.04.2024, the respondent No.5 permitted the respondent No.6 to execute the cancellation of registered deeds in Document Nos.5511/2024, 5512/202 and 5513/2024 on 18.06.2024. It clearly shows that at the time of execution of cancellation of deeds on 18.06.2024, the order of the respondent No.4 dated 18.04.2024 was set aside by the appellate authority i.e., the respondent No.3 in Appeal No.B/120/2024 dated 15.06.2024. In view of the disposal of the appeal in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation along with the orders in appeal to the respondent No.5 for cancellation of cancellation of Gift Deeds. In response to the same, the respondent No.5 has issued the impugned Memo in RC No.108/2024 dated 08.07.2024 stating that he has no jurisdiction to cancel any document without any Court orders. 12. In the instant case, the respondent No.5, basing on the orders of the respondent No.4 dated 18.04.2024 registered the cancellation of gift deeds on 18.06.2024, as on that date, there is no valid order from the competent authority and the basis for cancelation of the registered documents was set aside by the appellate authority. The respondent No.5 without application of mind and without taking into account of the orders of the District Collector has passed impugned order and stated that there is a provision for appeal against the orders of the District Collector and he has no jurisdiction for cancellation of the registered cancellation deeds. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 is that the petitioner being daughter has no right to file appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007. The said contention was considered by this Court and held that the children can avail the appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007 in H. Deepika’s case (supra) and Matangi Premalatha’s case (supra). Moreover in the instant case, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12971 of 2024 before this Court questioning the order of the respondent No.4 herein in No.C/256/2024 dated 18.04.2024 and the same was disposed of on 13.05.2024 directing her to approach the appellate authority. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 and filed appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007. In view of the same, the said contention of the respondent No.6 cannot be taken into account. 14. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 and filed appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007. In view of the same, the said contention of the respondent No.6 cannot be taken into account. 14. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in Urmila Dixit’s case (supra), is not apply to the facts of the present case. There is no dispute with regard to the power or the authority under the Act, 2007 in directing to cancel the registered documents. In the instant case facts are that in spite of the appellate authority order, the Sub-Registrar has not taken any steps to cancel the cancellation of the documents registered basing on the preliminary authority order and in view of the same, the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by the respondent No.6 is not apply to the facts of the present case. 15. In the above circumstances, it clearly shows that the respondent No.5 has not followed due procedure while registering the cancellation of Gift Deeds and issued the impugned Memo stating that he has no jurisdiction to cancel the registered cancellation deeds. The respondent No.5 has to take into account the orders of the respondent No.3 and has to cancel the cancellation of Gift Deeds registered in pursuance of the orders of the respondent No.4. In view of the same, the impugned Memo issued by the respondent No.5 is liable to be set aside and the respondent No.5 has to cancel the cancellation of deeds executed by the respondent No.6 in Document Nos.5511/2024, 5512/2024 and 5513/2024 dated 18.06.2024. 16. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Memo in RC. No.108/2024 dated 08.07.2024 and the respondent No.5 is directed to cancel the cancellation of registered Gift Deeds executed by the respondent No.6 bearing Nos.5511/2024, 5512/2024 and 5513/2024 dated dated18.06.2024 forthwith. No order as to costs. 17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.