Hyderabad: The Telangana high court has said that a donor cannot invoke the Senior Citizens’ Welfare Act to take back a property after executing a gift deedwithout 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.Theproperty disputestemmed 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 theSupreme 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.