The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a registered partition deed cannot be treated as a "transfer of property" under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Setting aside an order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Court ruled that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to cancel a partition deed merely because a maintenance dispute had arisen between the parties.
Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda delivered the judgment while allowing a writ petition filed by Uddagiri Srirama Murthy and another challenging the Tribunal's order cancelling a registered partition deed executed in 2018.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after the petitioners challenged an order dated October 19, 2023, passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners' mother, Uddagiri Ramalakshmi, and directed cancellation of a registered partition deed dated March 30, 2018.
The petitioners argued that the properties covered by the deed were joint family properties and that the document merely divided the pre-existing rights of the parties. They also contended that the deed did not involve any transfer of ownership and contained no condition requiring the son to maintain his mother. They further submitted that maintenance was already being paid in accordance with earlier orders of the competent authority.
On the other hand, the State authorities defended the Tribunal's decision, maintaining that it had acted within its statutory powers after considering the material on record.
Court's Observations
The High Court examined the scope of Section 23(1) of the 2007 Act, which empowers a Tribunal to declare certain property transfers void if a senior citizen transfers property on the condition that the transferee will provide maintenance or basic amenities, but later fails to do so.
The Court observed that three conditions must exist before Section 23(1) can be invoked: there must be a transfer of property by a senior citizen, the transfer must be subject to a maintenance condition, and the transferee must have failed to fulfil that obligation.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Shubh Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna, the Court explained that a partition is only a division of existing rights among co-owners and does not amount to a transfer of property.
Justice Nimmagadda observed,
"A partition constitutes a redistribution or adjustment of pre-existing rights and interests among co-owners or coparceners. It does not operate to create or confer title upon any party."
The Court further noted that the partition deed contained no clause requiring the son to provide maintenance or basic amenities to his mother. It held that
"Merely because disputes relating to maintenance have arisen between the parties, it cannot be a ground to annul a partition deed."
Court's Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction in directing cancellation of the registered partition deed. It set aside the Tribunal's order dated October 19, 2023, and restored the registered partition deed dated March 30, 2018.
The Court, however, clarified that Respondent No. 8 remains at liberty to pursue any other legal remedy available for seeking annulment of the partition deed before the appropriate forum. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Uddagiri Srirama Murthy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 29223 of 2023
Judge: Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
Decision Date: 24 June 2026
