Donor can't cite conditions to resume property already gifted sans any terms: Telangana HC
Hyderabad: The
Telangana high court
has said that a donor cannot invoke the
Senior Citizens' Welfare Act
to take back a property after executing a
gift deed
without any conditions and quashed a resumption order passed by Rajendranagar RDO.Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy pronounced the order while allowing a petition filed by P Rohit Saurya (23) who is the son of senior IPS officer PV Sunil Kumar of Andhra Pradesh.
The
property dispute
stemmed from an ongoing matrimonial row between Sunil and his wife. The property belongs to Sunil's father-in-law P Subba Rao.In December 2019, Subba Rao, through a gift deed, had given some floors of a building in Kondapur to his two grandsons – Rohit and his brother, who both reside in the US.But later he petitioned Rajendranagar RDO in 2023 seeking resumption of this property. Subba Rao cited section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens' Welfare Act, alleging that his two grandsons were not looking after him.
The RDO passed an order in Jan 2023 in his favour, directing the sub-registrar of Kondapur to cancel the gift deed to the two grandsons. Subba Rao passed away a few months later in Oct.The cancellation of the gift deed was challenged by Rohit through his GPA. His counsel P Roy Reddy contended that the RDO had no jurisdiction and the Senior Citizens' Welfare Act could not be invoked as their grandfather had never imposed any condition while gifting the property. Subsequently, Subba Rao's son PV Ramesh, a retired IAS officer from AP, also joined the legal battle. He contended that his nephew had approached court long after the death of the donor and also after cancellation of the gift deed without impleading any of the legal heirs. This was countered by Rohit, who said that no notice was served to him or his brother, both of whom reside abroad. Also, once the rights were vested in the donee they could not be revoked without due process, he said.Justice Bhaskar Reddy, after examining the contents of the gift deeds, observed that the transfer of property was made purely out of love, with no condition that the donees were to maintain the donor. Citing the
Supreme Court
's ruling in Sudesh Chhikara vs Ramti Devi, the HC held that absence of such a condition rendered Section 23 inapplicable and quashed the RDO's order.The HC also ruled that the heirs have no standing to invoke the Senior Citizens' Act and that their remedy, if any, lies before the civil courts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
Foreigners must be heard before restraining their movement after granting bail: Kerala HC
Kochi: High court has held that a foreign national granted bail must be given a chance to be heard before any movement restrictions are imposed under the Foreigners Act, except where national security or public interest demands otherwise. Justice C Jayachandran made the ruling while allowing a petition filed by a couple and their 22-year-old son, all Nepali citizens, who had been working as cleaning and housekeeping staff at a resort in Kalpetta. They challenged the orders issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), which restricted their movement even after they were granted bail in an alleged murder case. The petitioners were arrested on Sept 21, 2024, on allegations of murdering a newborn baby by strangulation. They were enlarged on bail in Nov 2024. According to them, despite having been granted bail by the court, the FRRO issued orders confining them to a transit home, without affording them an opportunity to be heard, an action they contended was illegal and arbitrary. In response, the central govt counsel argued that foreign nationals do not possess a fundamental right to move freely across India and that the Foreigners Act does not mandate an opportunity to be heard before such restrictions are imposed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Considering the significance and complexity of the legal issues involved, HC appointed an amicus curiae, who submitted that movement restrictions under the Foreigners Act are distinct from arrest or detention and do not amount to punishment. However, HC observed that, in the present case, allowing being heard would neither defeat the purpose of the proposed orders nor jeopardise national or state interests, and is in line with the principles of natural justice. The court further noted that restricting the movement of a foreign national amounts to a deprivation of personal liberty. It remarked, "Bondage, though in a golden cage, remains bondage." The court clarified that if the authority fears that issuing a notice may give the individual a chance to abscond, a provisional order may be passed to restrict movement and secure their presence. However, a subsequent opportunity to be heard must be provided in keeping with the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness. Accordingly, the court held the FRRO's orders to be illegal. It directed that the petitioners shall remain in the transit home for one more month, during which time the FRRO shall hear the petitioners and thereafter pass fresh orders under the Foreigners Act.
New Indian Express
20 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Abandoned by daughters, Andhra couple cancel gift deed
KADAPA: In a strong move to protect the rights of senior citizens, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) of Jammalamadugu, A Sai Sree, annulled a property gift deed executed by an elderly couple in Proddatur, Kadapa district, after their five daughters abandoned them. The order was issued under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which empowers authorities to revoke property transfers if children fail to care for their elderly parents. According to official reports, Mallepati Mohan Rao (86) and his wife Gauramma (75), who owned a sweet shop in the town, had gifted their house (Door No. 18/437-A) on Rangayya Satra Street to their daughters through a registered document (No. 29419/2024) on July 23, 2024. However, the couple later alleged that the daughters began neglecting them soon after the transfer, failing to provide basic needs such as food, clothing, and medical care. Left to depend on neighbours and charitable organisations, the couple eventually moved into a retirement home.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC ends 16-year land row: Bholakpur slum status under review; collector told to act in 6 months, inform GHMC
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court has disposed of a long-pending dispute over a property located in Bholakpur, Secunderabad, originally filed in 2008, along with a connected contempt case from 2021. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court directed the Hyderabad district collector to conduct an inquiry under the provisions of the Slum Improvement Act and to complete it within six months. The court further directed the collector to issue a reasoned order, taking into account all relevant facts, and to communicate the same to the petitioners in both the writ and contempt petitions, as well as to GHMC for necessary action. The dispute concerns approximately 12,056 square yards of private land known as 'Ramaswamy compound,' of which 9,000 square yards were notified as a slum area in 1999. The writ petitioners, claiming to be absolute owners of the land, challenged slum notification. Meanwhile, the contempt petitioners contested the 2007 GHMC eviction orders and a 2016 HC direction to maintain status quo. They also claimed to have been in possession of land for several decades, while the 2008 petitioners stated they had already secured eviction orders under Rent Control Act. While the petitioners in the contempt case alleged unauthorised demolition on the disputed land, the advocate commissioner's report found no proof of such activity.
