Gift Deed Executed By Senior Citizen Father In Favour Of Son Can't Be Cancelled If Condition Of Upkeep By Son Is Not Mentioned: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his son releasing his property who subsequently sells it, cannot be cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of Senior Citizen Tribunal, if there is no condition mentioned in the gift deed of maintaining the father (donor).

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Vivek Jain who had purchased the property from CS Harsha, who was gifted the property by his father Srinivas in the year 2019.

Srinivas initially executed a gift deed in favour of his wife in the year 2000. However, she died in the year 2015 and thereafter Srinivas gifted the property to his son by execution in 2019 and the son's name was entered in all revenue records. In this backdrop, the son sold the property in favour of the petitioner. Two years after the said sale, Srinivas approached the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act.

The Assistant Commissioner set aside both the Gift Deed and the sale deed. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner argued that the gift deed did not contain any such condition for the Assistant Commissioner to have entertained the petition. Moreover, the Assistant Commissioner could not have set aside the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

The counsel for the donor (Srinivas) contended that after the death of his wife, Srinivas assumed that the property had devolved back to him and accordingly gifted the property in favour of the son. However, the property would not devolve back to the hands of the donor and all the members of the family would become entitled to seek share in the property, as the donee of the gift is no more. Hence, all the actions after the death of the wife are all a nullity in law.

The bench took into account that the donor (Srinivas) enjoyed the property for over four years after the death of his wife whom she had gifted the property to and then executed a gift deed on 20-06-2019 in favour of the son. After execution of the gift deed, a release deed was also executed. The son cleared all the dues to the bank, a loan that was availed by his mother. Thereafter, the Bank executed a discharge deed in favour of the son. Thus, the property became free from all encumbrances. It is then that the son sold the property in favour of the petitioner.

Further, the proceeds of sale were also distributed to the donor, Rs 15 lakhs was paid to him by way of deposit being made in the Life Insurance Corporation of India and Rs 10,000 per month were being remitted to the bank account of the father/donor.

Relying on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devu (2022), the court said, “The Assistant Commissioner would get jurisdiction to annul the gift deed only if the recitals in the gift deed have the condition, as observed by the Apex Court in RAMTI DEVI. There is no condition in the gift deed that would satisfy the test laid down in RAMTI DEVI. Therefore, this Court cannot but interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.”

Further it rejected the contention of the donor (Srinivas) that petitioner has no right to question the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. It said “I decline to accept the said submission. Before the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner was a party; he was respondent No.3. He had to protect his property which he had purchased in accordance with law. There was nothing contrary to law when the petitioner purchased the property from the hands of the 4th respondent. Against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner had approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal. The appeal is dismissed for want of maintainability and, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.”

It added, “If he is to be driven to the civil Court, the present order of the Assistant Commissioner will always stare at him, as he has lost the property by a stroke of pen, of the Assistant Commissioner, which I have found fault with, following the afore-quoted judgments. Therefore, the petitioner does have all the right to call the said order of the Assistant Commissioner in question before this Court, as he cannot be left remediless.”

The court refused to consider the issue of whether the property would devolve back to the hands of the father after the death of his wife who was the recipient of the first gift deed. It said, “I leave the issue open to be agitated by the parties before a competent civil Court.”

Lastly, it noted that in the growing cost of living the amount being remitted to the father as of now would not be enough, Court directed the son to pay him additional maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta a/w Advocate Narendra P R for Petitioner.

AGA Navya Shekhar, for R1 and R2.

Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar, a/w Advocate Srikanth M, for R-3 and R-5.

Advocate Satyanarayana Reddy, for R4.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 248

Case Title: Vivek Jain AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14704 OF 2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order