The Telangana high court has reversed an order cancelling a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his grandson, deeming it 'legally untenable'. The court restored the property to the grandson but expressed no opinion on the grandfather's right to cancellation or the grandson's claim. The case involves allegations of inadequate maintenance under the 2007 Act.
The case originates from an April 2018 gift deed involving a residential property in Kothapet village on the outskirts of Hyderabad, executed by the grandfather in favour of his grandson, the appellant. The grandson demolished the old structure and constructed a new building valued at approximately Rs 4 crore. Later, the grandfather sought cancellation of the deed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging he was not provided proper care.
The grandfather's application before the revenue divisional officer of Keesara division in July 2022 was dismissed, as was the appeal to the district collector of Medchal Malkajgiri district in July 2023, noting the dispute's civil nature and the absence of an express maintenance condition in the gift deed. In March 2025, the grandfather filed a second appeal or review petition before the Commissioner/Director of the Department for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents, Senior Citizens, and Transgender Persons, which remanded the matter to the District Collector for fresh consideration. In April 2025, the Appellate Tribunal and Additional District Collector of Medchal Malkajgiri District allowed the appeal and ordered cancellation of the gift deed, holding it fell within Section 23 of the 2007 Act. A single-judge bench of the high court upheld this by dismissing the grandson's writ petition.
The division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin, in a judgment dated February 27, set aside the single judge's order. The bench found that proceedings after the District Collector's July 2023 order rested on a 'legally untenable foundation' and were without jurisdiction. The court noted, 'The 2007 Act does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, provide for a further appeal or revisional jurisdiction to the Commissioner/Director against the appellate order of the District Collector.' It declared the March 2025 remand order void for lacking statutory sanction, stating that an order passed without inherent jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of the law.
The court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the grandfather's substantive right to seek cancellation of the gift deed or the grandson's claim over the property, leaving those issues open to be agitated before the competent civil court in accordance with law.