Gift Deed Executed By Senior Citizen Can Be Declared Null And Void Only If It Contains Stipulation On Maintenance By Transferee: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that a gift deed executed by a senior citizen can be declared as null and void under the Senior Citizens Act only if a stipulation is contained therein that the transferee shall maintain him or her in return.

A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K S Hemalekha, while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by Nanjappa, said, “On careful perusal of the document executed by the appellant in favour of the 3rd respondent, who happens to be the brother of the appellant, it does not contain any stipulation that the 3rd respondent is under the obligation to maintain the present appellant. In the absence of any condition stipulated in the documents, the provisions of Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are not attracted.”

Nanjappa had approached the court questioning the Single judge bench order dated 26.2.2019, which allowed the petition filed by M.B. Nagaraju, and quashing the order, dated 20.8.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which had declared that the gift deed executed by Nanjappa as null and void and directed the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, to re-register the right in respect of the said property in favour of present appellant/Nanjappa.

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for the petitioner contended that the act recognises the vulnerable position of the senior citizen in the present society and intends to provide a mechanism to avoid their suffering and to ensure that the life and property of the senior citizen are secured.

“The learned Single Judge committed an error in law and on facts as Section 23(1) of the Act does not mandate, the requirement to provide basic amenities and basic physical needs in the Transfer Deed, should be in ‘writing’, but the learned Single Judge has proceeded to hold that the requirement to provide basic 7 amenities and basic physical needs in the Transfer Deed, should be expressly provided in the Transfer Deed,” it was submitted.

Sondhi argued that the condition of the requirements in the Transfer Deed to be in ‘writing’ mandated by the learned Judge "in fact, makes it an additional requirement which is not stipulated in Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act. If the intention of the legislature was that the condition mentioned in Section 23 of the said Act ought to be in writing in the document of transfer, then it would have provided for the same expressly.”

The respondent opposed the plea saying, “As per SubSection (1) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, two conditions must be fulfilled i.e., the transfer must have been made subject to condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor and if both the conditions are satisfied, by a legal friction, the transfer shall be deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence.”

Findings

The court referred to Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and said: “On careful perusal of the document executed by the appellant in favour of the 3rd respondent, who happens to be the brother of the appellant, it does not contain any stipulation that the 3rd respondent is under the obligation to maintain the present appellant.”

“In view of the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, the transaction could be declared as null and void provided the same contains the stipulation that the transferee shall maintain the senior citizen and the aforesaid Gift Deed does not contain any such stipulation,” said the court.

The court said in the absence of any condition stipulated in the documents, the provisions of Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are not attracted.”

The bench placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara -vs- Ramti Devi and noted that that the commissioner ignored the conditions stipulated under the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Senior Citizens Act, as held by the Supreme Court.

“Though our conscious is in favour of the welfare of the Senior Citizens considering the scope and object of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, but our hands are tied in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara, wherein while interpreting the very provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act, it has been held that the two conditions must be stipulated in the document, which is binding on all including this Court as contemplated under Article 141 of the Constitution of India,” it added.

Case Title: Nanjappa And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.573/2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 138

Date of Order: 16-03-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi a/w Advocate Mahantesh Shettar for appellant.

HCGP Kiran Kumar for R1, R2.

Senior Advocate R S Ravi a/w Advocate K Vijaya Kumar for R3.