ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.4 in revoking the Gift Settlement Deed bearing No.2045 of 2021 dated 15.02.2021 during the pendency of appeal and further, in not considering and passing necessary orders on petitioners’ representation, dated 03.02.2023, 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 the 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, the Primary Authority passed an order dated 31.12.2022, cancelling the Gift Settlement Deed dated 15.02.2021 and directed respondent No.4 to take necessary steps accordingly. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.4 has revoked the Gift Settlement Deed dated 09.01.2023. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent No.4, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3.1 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2022 of the Primary Authority, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority- respondent No.2 on 06.01.2023 along with an application seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by Primary Authority. He further submitted that as respondent No.2 had not proceeded to dispose of the stay application, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2721 of 2023 seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the stay application and this Court vide order dated 01.02.2023 directed respondent No.2 to dispose of the stay application within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 on 06.02.2023 to dispose of the stay application, but, respondent No.2 was not proceeding with the stay application and disposing of the same. Thereafter, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 on 06.02.2023 to dispose of the stay application, but, respondent No.2 was not proceeding with the stay application and disposing of the same. 3.2 Learned counsel has further 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. He further submitted that after execution of the said Gift Settlement Deed, the petitioner has developed the property, which was a vacant plot, to a two-storied building with his own funds and by obtaining loans worth Rs.40 lakhs. 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. 3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.5 is trying to alienate the subject property to third parties taking advantage of non-disposal of stay application filed by the petitioner, which would create multiplicity of proceedings and hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.02.2023, requesting respondent No.4 not to entertain any sale transaction in respect of the said property. 4. By contending as supra, learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petition and consequently, to set aside the revocation of Gift Settlement Deed dated 15.02.2021 executed in respect of the subject property. 5. 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. 6. In P.Rohit Saurya’s case (cited supra), this Court held that the requirements under Section 23 (1) of the 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 respondent No.3 cancelling the Gift Settlement Deed. 7. 7. In Sudesh Chhikara’s case (cited supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor-senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of Sub-section (1) of Section-23 of the Senior Citizens Act and that in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 it is not pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition. By observing thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the impugned order therein passed by the Maintenance Tribunal as well as the order of the High Court, whereunder the subject Release Deed therein was declared as null and void. 8. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that originally, the husband of respondent No.5 had purchased the vacant land admeasuring 200 square yards in Plot No.17, in Sy.No.150/AA, situated at Kattedan Village, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, through registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1091 of 1997 dated 03.04.1997 and the same was nominally registered in the name of respondent No.5. While so, taking advantage of advanced age of respondent No.5 and her emotional dependency, the petitioner promised to take care of her and provide effective support and maintenance for the rest of her life; that basing on said assurance, respondent No.5 had executed a Gift Deed in respect of the subject property in favour of petitioner. 8.1. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no reason for respondent No.5 and other family members to exclusively choose the writ petitioner to be the sole beneficiary of the property, but for his promise to take special care of respondent No.5 and the said assurance is the implicit condition for execution of gift deed in favour of the writ petitioner and therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs for subjecting respondent No.5 to trauma and also considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and suppressed the real facts. 8.2. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.5 relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- 1. Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit , (2025) 2 SCC 787 2. Varinder Kaur Vs. Daljit Kaur , 2025 SCC ONLINE DEL 6212 9. 8.2. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.5 relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- 1. Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit , (2025) 2 SCC 787 2. Varinder Kaur Vs. Daljit Kaur , 2025 SCC ONLINE DEL 6212 9. In Urmila Dixit ’s case (cited supra), the facts of the case are that gift deed and vachan patra/promissory note were registered on 09.09.2019 and that in the promissory note, it has been stated that respondent will take care of the appellant till end of her life and if he does not do so, the appellant will be at liberty to take back the gift deed. However, the respondent has alleged that the promissory note is fabricated. In such a scenario, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to interpretation of the provisions in the beneficial legislations qua the Senior Citizens Act, wherein it was categorically held that the said Act should receive a purposeful or functional interpretation and a construction that advances the remedies of the Act must be adopted. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the two conditions, viz., the transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and the transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor, for attracting the application of Section 23 (1) of the Act, as mentioned in Sudesh Chhikara ’s case, must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislation. By observing as such, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the Gift deed dated 07.09.2019, thereby upholding the order of the Primary authority declaring the gift deed as null and void. 10. By observing as such, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the Gift deed dated 07.09.2019, thereby upholding the order of the Primary authority declaring the gift deed as null and void. 10. In Varinder Kaur’ s case (cited supra), the Delhi High Court at para-30 held as follows:- “If we examine the facts of the instant case in the light of the legal principles as discussed above, the settled legal position which emerges is that for attracting the provisions of Section 23 (1) of the Senior Citizens Act, the deed in question need not expressly contain a condition that transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor, especially in the context of execution of a gift feed.” 11. A scrupulous reading of the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court shows that it has heavily relied on the judgment of High Court of Bombay in Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Collector , [2024 SCC Online Bom 1031] , but, it has obviously misinterpreted the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chikkara’s case (cited supra), wherein it is specifically mentioned that for attracting the application of Section 23 (1) of the Act, the two essentials expounded therein are to be fulfilled/satisfied. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to follow the said judgment. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this Court feels it necessary to reiterate that it is well settled principle of law that a beneficial legislation must receive a liberal construction in consonance with the objectives that the Act concerned seeks to serve. Admittedly, the matter involved in the present case relates to Senior Citizens Act-a beneficial legislation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit’s case (cited supra) while dealing with the matter relating to Senior Citizens Act, has referred to various citations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to the said Act and further, keeping in mind the beneficial intention of the statute, held that the said Act empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee. 13. Coming to the case at hand, it is to be seen that respondent No.5 executed a gift deed in favour of petitioner, out of love and affection, and the said gift deed did not provide/stipulate any condition for maintenance of respondent No.5 by the petitioner. 13. Coming to the case at hand, it is to be seen that respondent No.5 executed a gift deed in favour of petitioner, out of love and affection, and the said gift deed did not provide/stipulate any condition for maintenance of respondent No.5 by the petitioner. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara’s case (cited supra) squarely applies to the instant case, wherein it is categorically expounded that for attracting the application of Section 23 (1) of the Act, the transfer by the transferor-senior citizen must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. However, in the instant case, no such condition is reflected in the gift deed executed by respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner and therefore, in the absence of same, Section 23 (1) of the Senior Citizens Act is not attracted. 14. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that in Urmila Dixit’s case (cited supra), in the subject gift deed therein, it was recorded that the donee maintains the donor and the former makes all necessary provisions for the peaceful life of the donor and in promissory note which was simultaneously executed therewith, it was stated that the donee shall serve the appellant therein (donor) and her husband till the end of their life, and in the absence of fulfilling such obligation, the subsequent deed can be taken back by the appellant therein (donor). In such backdrop of the case, even though the donee therein has disputed that the subject promissory note therein by pleading that the same is fabricated, Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to liberal construction of the beneficial Act qua the Senior Citizens Act and observed as under:- “In our considered view, the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 of the Act is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee.” 15. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee.” 15. The facts of the case in Urmila Dixit’s case (cited supra) and the facts in the present case are completely different and as such, the same has no application to the present case, especially in the absence of any condition in the gift deed. Further, the gift deed was not executed subject to condition that respondent No.5 shall be taken care of and maintained by petitioner, as such, two essentials expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara’s case (cited supra) were not satisfied for attracting the provision of Section 23 (1) of the Senior Citizens Act. 16. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that application of Section 23 (1) of the Senior Citizens Act is not attracted and as such, the order passed by the Primary Authority is held to be not sustainable and as a sequel, the action of respondent No.4 in revoking the subject gift settlement deed dated 15.02.2021, pursuant to order passed by the Primary Authority, is declared as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 17. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.