As the authorities have to follow the legal system and principles of natural justice even while enforcing the object of the Social Security Act, the Telangana High Court set aside the decision of a single judge to set aside a gift deed made by a retired director to his grandson.
A bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin, delivering the verdict in a series of three appeals regarding the ownership rights of a plot and a two-storey building at Kothapet in suburban Hyderabad, quashed the order of the Commissioner for Nutrition and Care of Parents, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons. The Court held that the Commissioner’s order granting a review or second appeal clearly lacked jurisdiction.
In 2018, 90-year-old C. Ramulu executed a registered deed of gift relating 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 deal and settled with his paternal uncle by paying him ₹ 10 lakh before signing the gift deed. The grandson later demolished the house and built a two-storey building at a cost of 4 million rupees.
However, the senior finally stated that he was invited to enter into the donation agreement with guarantees of care and maintenance. Accusing his grandson of not providing care and support as promised, he 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 with the Keesara Revenue Division Officer, who rejected it.
He challenged the order of the RDO before the District Collector of Medchal-Malkajgiri (Appellate Authority) under Section 16 of the same Act. The Collector rejected the appeal, stating that the donation agreement did not contain an express condition regarding alimony for the elderly, which had to be invoked under Section 23(1) of the Act on Cancellation of the Donation Agreement. The senior again turned to the commissioner who informed Mr. Srinivas. The Commissioner passed an order returning Mr. Ramulu’s second appeal to the District Collector, who eventually canceled the deed of donation.
Mr. Srinivas moved the HC. A single judge HC initially stayed the commissioner’s order, but ultimately upheld the order canceling the gift deed. Mr. Srinivas filed an appeal against the order of the Single Judge. The Court, headed by the CJ, noted that the Commissioner assumed a jurisdiction not conferred by the parent statute in the second appeal. Therefore, the order cannot be followed, the bench said.
Referring to the single judge’s observation that Mr. Srinivas had played a fraud on the sub-register, the court observed that there was no material to suggest that such fraud had taken place. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of willful deception, a finding of fraud with serious civil consequences should not have been recorded, the court noted.
Published – 04 March 2026 21:16 IST
