Donor can't cite conditions to resume property already gifted sans any terms: Telangana HC
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
3 hours ago
- Time of India
HC: Court can't take cognisance of PMLA case without hearing accused
Calcutta HC KOLKATA: A court cannot take cognisance of a case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act without hearing the accused, as required under the BNSS, Calcutta HC on Friday held, quashing proceedings under PMLA against three accused. Tutu Ghosh, Bipin Kumar Kedia, and Anil Kumar Jain were accused of offences under sections 3 and 4 (money laundering), read with section 70 of PMLA (offences by companies and their officials). They approached the HC, contending the PMLA judge took cognisance of the offences in violation of the first proviso to BNSS section 223, as no opportunity of hearing was given to any of them before such cognisance was taken. Senior counsel appearing for the accused argued that BNSS has introduced a provision requiring an opportunity of hearing for the accused prior to the taking of cognisance, and that denial of such an opportunity amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
2006 train blasts: Bombay HC to pronounce verdict on death confirmation pleas today
Over five months after it reserved verdict on death confirmation pleas filed by the state and appeals by the accused against their conviction in the 7/11 train blasts case of 2006, the Bombay High Court will pronounce the judgement Monday. After conducting hearings over six months, special bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam C Chandak on January 31 this year reserved its verdict on pleas filed in the high court. In 2015, the special court convicted the accused who have been in jail for over 18 years. On July 11, 2006, a series of bombs ripped through seven western suburban coaches of a train, killing 189 commuters and injuring 824. After an over eight-year trial, a special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) in October 2015 awarded death penalty to five of the convicts and life terms to seven others. Death row convicts Kamal Ansari from Bihar, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh from Mumbai, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui from Thane, Naveed Hussain Khan from Secunderabad and Asif Khan from Jalgaon in Maharashtra were found guilty of planting the bombs. Those awarded life term were Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Latiur Rehman Shaikh. One of the accused, Wahid Shaikh, was acquitted by the trial court after nine years in jail. The Maharashtra government in 2015 approached the HC with pleas seeking confirmation of death penalty granted to five convicts. On the other hand, the convicts filed appeals challenging the special court order. Ansari, one of the convicts on death row, died due to Covid-19 in Nagpur prison in 2021. As the accused sought speedy disposal of the matter, the HC in July 2023, constituted a special bench led by Justice Kilor, which conducted regular hearings through more than 75 sittings. The lawyers representing the convicts argued that their 'extra-judicial confessional statements' obtained by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) through 'torture' were inadmissible under the law. They also argued that the accused were falsely implicated, innocent and were languishing in jail for 18 years without substantial evidence and their prime years were gone in incarceration. The appellants said that the trial court erred in convicting them and therefore the said order be set aside. The Maharashtra government opposed the appeals by convicts and claimed that the probing agency had provided sufficient evidence to establish it was 'rarest of the rare' case to sentence the accused to death penalty.
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC orders top 18 floors Tardeo-high-rise residents to vacate flats without Occupation Certificate
The Bombay High Court has directed 'selfish' residents occupying the top 18 floors of a 34-storey tower in Tardeo, south Mumbai, having no Occupation Certificate (OC) to vacate their premises within two weeks and also raised concerns over no fire NOC for the entire high-rise. Failing which, the BMC will be free to take any action under notices issued by it as per law. The Court said residents of the Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society, while indulging in 'brazen illegalities' for years, were least bothered about their own and others' lives. 'There being no fire No Objection Certificate (NOC), no OC for 17 to 34 floors, itself is glaring. It appears that the persons who are occupying the 34 storied building are least bothered about their own lives, if this be so, how can they be bothered about anybody else, in the event of any untoward incident of any nature taking place,' the HC observed. 'Such an approach which is wholly contrary to law, cannot be countenanced, in fact, it would set an example to perpetuate illegalities. It needs to be deprecated,' The Court clarified that the said persons will be entitled to occupy respective flats or tenements on 17th to 34th floor 'only after OC is granted' by following due process of law. A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor passed an order on July 15 (Tuesday) while hearing a batch of pleas pertaining to the high-rise occupied by 50 flat purchasers of total 62 flats, which was made available on Saturday night. The bench rejected a request by senior advocate Dinyar Madon for housing society that sought stay on operation of the order citing Supreme Court order in Campa Cola case. The HC noted that during earlier hearings, the members occupying 'illegal' flats from 17 to 34 floors were 'emphatically' told to make alternate arrangements. The bench further said that there cannot be a plea 'more audacious' than the one seeking permission to occupy flats without OC as it would lead to 'regime of complete lawlessness.' Senior advocate S U Kamdar for BMC said it had issued several notices in respect of 17 to 34 floors to vacate their premises and said that the construction was required to be restored in conformity with originally submitted plans He argued that permitting occupancy on 17 to 34 floors would be against the law and in fact the entire building was required to be sealed for not having fire NOC. The HC said that while it will hear the plea in regard to those who occupy 1st to 16th floors having part-OC during next hearing, the BMC 'shall stay its hands in resorting to any demolition, under the notices and insofar as the illegal constructions in respect of which notices were issued.' However, Justice Kulkarni for the bench 'unreservedly' noted that in view of its observations and earlier orders, it 'did not approve the members continuing their occupation in the absence of the Fire NOC to the building even in regard to the 1st to 16th floors which has no fire clearance or approval from the Fire Department, by way of a Fire NOC.' The HC refused a plea to continue the earlier interim protection order of March 20, 2025 for another year to take corrective measures for regularisation and vacated the same. 'We would be justified to say that the flat purchasers who have taken law into their own hands in occupying construction which has no OC, are a selfish lot, who not only with open eyes are acting contrary to the building regulations but also have means, to defeat legal actions being taken by BMC, by indulging in several statutory violations, which can never be permitted,' the judges recorded. 'Merely for the reason that the developer, and the society and its members have resources in abundance, to first resort to illegalities and then by every possible means try to protect the illegalities ought not to prevent the Municipal Corporation to take an appropriate action as the law mandates,' the HC added and posted further hearing to July 29.
