HC sets aside single judge order over gift deed

Observing that the authorities must adhere to the statutory scheme and the principles of natural justice even while advancing the object of a welfare statute, the Telangana High Court set aside a single judge order of cancellation of a gift deed made by a retired headmaster to his grandson.

The bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, pronouncing verdict in a batch of three appeals over ownership rights of a ground plus two-floored building at Kothapet on the outskirts of Hyderabad, quashed the order of the Commissioner for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons. The bench observed that the Commissioner’s order of permitting a review or second appeal clearly lacked jurisdiction.

Ninety-year-old C. Ramulu in 2018 made a registered gift deed pertaining to a house spread over 247 square yards in Kothapet to his grandson 40-year-old businessman C. Srinivas. The latter made an internal family arrangement and made an agreement with a paternal uncle by paying him ₹10 lakh before making the gift deed. The grandson later demolished the house and built two-storeyed building by spending four crore rupees.

However, the senior citizen eventually stated that he was induced to make the gift deed with assurances of care and maintenance. Accusing his grandson of not providing care and support as promised, the senior citizen sought cancellation of the gift deed in 2023 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act-2007 and filed an application before Keesara Revenue Divisional Officer who dismissed it.

He challenged the RDO order before Medchal-Malkajgiri district Collector (appellate authority) under section 16 of the same Act. The Collector dismissed the appeal observing that the gift deed did not contain an express condition regarding the maintenance of the senior citizen which was required to invoke section 23 (1) of the Act to cancel the gift deed. The senior citizen again approached the Commissioner who issued notice to Mr. Srinivas. The Commissioner passed an order remanding the second appeal made by Mr. Ramulu to the District Collector who eventually cancelled the gift deed.

Mr. Srinivas moved the HC. A single judge of the HC initially stayed the Commissioner order but eventually upheld the order of cancellation of the gift deed. Challenging the single judge order, Mr. Srinivas filed the appeal petition. The bench headed by the CJ noted that the Commissioner assumed a jurisdiction which the parent statute did not confer in passing order in a second appeal. Hence, the order cannot be sustained, the bench said.

Referring to the single judge observation that Mr. Srinivas played fraud upon the Sub-Registrar, the bench noted that there was no material to suggest such fraud was committed. In the absence of clear and cogent evidence establishing deliberate deception a finding of fraud entailing serious civil consequences ought not to have been recorded, the bench noted.