Hyderabad: In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of powers under the senior citizens’ welfare law, Telangana high court has set aside orders cancelling a gift deed executed by a grandfather in favour of his grandson.The dispute centred on a 2018 registered gift deed relating to a house built on a 247 square yard plot in Kothapet, which had been gifted to the 40-year-old appellant by his grandfather. The court said that the commissioner of the maintenance and welfare of parents, senior citizens, and transgender persons department lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Alleging neglect, the 90-year-old grandfather sought cancellation of the gift deed. Acting on his plea, authorities annulled the document. Disposing of the appeal, a bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin ruled that the entire proceedings leading to the cancellation were without statutory authority and therefore void. The grandfather had initially questioned the deed on the ground that it was not executed voluntarily and had been obtained under suspicious circumstances.However, the district collector, the primary authority tasked with implementing the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, upheld the validity of the document. The collector found that the deed had been duly registered and that there was no convincing material to establish that the donor was under pressure or incapable of understanding the nature of the transaction. The collector further held that once a gift deed is executed, accepted and registered, it carries legal sanctity unless strong evidence is produced to invalidate it. Aggrieved by this finding, the 90-year-old retired headmaster approached the commissioner seeking a review. The deed was subsequently cancelled in his favour. When the appellant challenged the cancellation order, a single judge of the high court initially upheld it. Hearing the appeal against the single judge order, the division bench observed that the essential ingredients of a valid gift — voluntary execution, acceptance by the donee and proper registration — had been satisfied. It also underscored that appellate interference is limited where factual findings are supported by evidence. Allowing the appeal, the bench held that the impugned orders suffered from legal infirmity and restored the validity of the gift deed.
