S.23 Senior Citizens Act | Karnataka HC Allows Mother To Void Gift Deed Transferring Property To Son After He Refuses To Assist Parents In Old Age

The Karnataka High Court has said that when parents transfer property by way of gift, a reasonable expectation that their offspring would take care of their requirements in their old age can imputed from the pleadings made in the application filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, even if not so mentioned in the gift deed.

Section 23 pertains to transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while setting aside an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which had rejected the application made by one Shobha seeking to void the gift deed executed in favour of her son Dr Anil P Kumar after he showed disinterest in ensuring her and her husband's welfare and did not provide basic amenities and tend to physical needs during old age.

The court declared the gift deed as void and directed the son to hand over the property subject matter of the Gift Deed, to the mother, within sixty days.

The counsel for the petitioner had contended that the very purpose of executing the Gift Deed in favour of her was to enable him to build a Nursing Home in furtherance of the education which had been imparted to him after incurring huge expenses by her and her husband and take care of them.

The counsel for the son placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another in Civil Appeal No.174/2021 disposed of on 06.12.2022 and argued that without a clause in the Gift Deed being present as regards an obligation on the donee to take care of the basic necessities of the donor parent, there cannot be an obligation so imposed.

Further, his father was a retired Range Forest Officer who had enough and adequate properties, income and pension amount, as such there is no requirement for him to take care of the petitioner's daily needs, but he undertook to take care of her medical treatment or otherwise if any.

Findings:

The court noted that the petitioner and her husband out of love and affection towards their son had maintained him during his studies, supported him during his education and made payment of all the educational expenses. After completion of his education, when the son expressed his desire to set up a Nursing Home at Raichur, the petitioner transferred her property under a Gift Deed to enable easy construction by obtaining all permissions in his name.

It was submitted in paragraph 6 of the petition that the son had promised that he would provide basic amenities and physical needs to his mother and thereby the gift deed was executed.

Stating that the Apex court judgment relied on by the son would not be applicable to the present case, the court said, “The Hon'ble Apex Court has not in as many words categorically stated that the condition for providing basic amenities and basic physical needs is to be incorporated in the Gift Deed and Release Deed, but what has been held in that case is that the pleadings did not indicate any such obligation having been undertaken by the donee or the releasee made in an application filed under Section 23 of the Act.”

Then it said, “The contention that there is no obligation imposed in the Gift Deed and therefore, jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act cannot be exercised is not countenanced by the said judgment.”

Noticing that the father had died during the pendency of the proceedings the court said “I am unable to countenance the stand of the son that there is no obligation on the part of the son to take care of his mother during her old age, merely because, there is no such obligation imposed in the Gift Deed.”

The court also clarified that the age of the application filing a petition under Section 23 of the Act would have to be considered on the date of the application, so long as the applicant satisfies the requirement of being a senior citizen on that day, the same would be sufficient and it is not required for the donor or releasor to be a senior citizen on the day on which the Gift or Release is executed.

Accordingly, it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Shivanand Patil, for the petitioner.

Advocate Ganesh S.Kalburgi, for R1.

Additional Government Advocate Shivakumar R.Tengli, for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar). 375

Case Title: Shobha AND Dr Anil P Kumar

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202832 OF 2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order