P.ROHIT SAURYA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking following relief:

(2.) It is stated that the respondent No.4, who is maternal grandfather of the petitioner has instituted a Case vide No.H/2215/2022 on the file of the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, under the provisions of the Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short "Senior Citizens Act, 2007") seeking to cancel the registered gift deed bearing document No.21857/2019 dtd. 20/12/2019 in respect of 5th and 6th floors of the building situated on Plot No.3 along with common share in the land and building covered by premises bearing Municipal No.1-111/1/17/JF/3, Sy.No.70, Jaagruti Foundations, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of petitioner and also registered gift deed bearing document No.21855/2019 dtd. 20/12/2019 in respect of 3rd and 4th floors of the building situated on Plot No.3 along with common share in the land and building covered by premises bearing Municipal No.1- 111/1/17/JF/3, Sy.No.70, Jaagruti Foundations, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of Mr. P. Harshal (brother of petitioner) making certain allegations against the father of the petitioners i.e, son-in-law of the respondent No.4 and that the purpose of gifting the properties in favour of donees proved fertile as they did not look after donor and his daughter. It is further stated that the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dtd. 12/1/2023 allowed the Case No.H/2215/2022 holding that the gift deed bearing document Nos.21855/2019 and 21857/2019 are liable to be cancelled and accordingly, directed the Joint Sub-Registrar-2, Ranga Reddy District, to take necessary action for cancellation of said gift deeds. It is the case of the petitioner that no notices were served on him or his brother as they are residing in USA. It is further case of the petitioner that Sec. 23(1) of Senior Citizens Act, is not at all attracted as the registered gift deeds do not contain any clause/covenants subjecting the gift to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another, (2022) 17 SCR 876. It is also case of the petitioner that once the right has been created in his favour, such right cannot be taken away without following due process of law and more particularly in the absence of applicability of Sec. 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that after passing of the impugned order dtd. 12/1/2023, Respondent No.4 expired on 20/10/2023, and if any person claiming to be his legal heir disputes the registered gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioner and his brother, such person must avail appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court, as the legal heirs of the deceased executant do not have any right to dispute the gift deed in the absence of the executant himself contesting the matter.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.8 inter alia stating that Respondent No.4 passed away on 20/10/2023, leaving behind four children as his legal heirs. It is also stated that the wife of Respondent No.4 predeceased him. According to the respondent, the property held by the Respondent No.4 would naturally devolve upon his children, and the petitioner, being fully aware of this fact, has deliberately and wantonly filed the present writ petition without impleading the legal heirs as necessary parties, and that too after a lapse of nine months. It is further stated that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, and the writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. It is contended that Respondent No.3 has rightly exercised the powers conferred under the Senior Citizens Act, and upon considering the failure of the petitioner to provide medical and basic needs to the Respondent No.4 (Senior Citizen), rightly passed the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.