Senior Citizens Act Prospective In Nature; Won't Affect Past Transactions : Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed an appeal filed by one C. Kamalamma, challenging the order of a single judge bench dated October 5. The court had by its order set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner declaring the registered gift deed in favour of the respondent No.5 as null and void.

As per the appeal the appellant was the owner of the property bearing Sy.Nos.127/3A, 127/3B, 127/4, 128/1, 128/2 and 128/3. She transferred the property in question by way of a registered gift deed dated 22.08.2005 in favour of her daughter. The respondent No.5 in turn sold the property in question vide registered sale deed dated 26.08.2014 in favour of respondent No.1/petitioner.

However, the appellant by invoking the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner. The commissioner set at naught the registered gift deed and also registered sale deed dated 26.08.2014. The order was challenged by the purchaser of the property before the High Court.

The division bench on perusal of the material on record observed, "It is not in dispute that the appellant has gifted the property in favour of her daughter under a registered gift deed dated 22.08.2005. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was brought into force in 2007."

It added, "The wordings incorporated under Section 23 of the Act clearly indicates that the application under Section 23 is prospective in nature. Section 23(1) of the Act deals with only those transactions which are made by senior citizens after the commencement of the Act."

The court went on to opine, "In the present case on hand, the appellant has gifted the property in question under registered gift deed dated 22.08.2005 much prior to the commencement of the Act and therefore, all transactions which are pre-enactment are saved and therefore, the respondent No.4/Assistant Commissioner had no authority to entertain the petition filed by the appellant herein."

Further, the court observed, "It is not in dispute that the appellant has already approached the competent civil court seeking relief of declaration and has challenged the registered gift deed and also consequent sale deed executed by the respondent No.5. We are of the view that the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies on the same cause of action."

Accordingly, the court held, "We are in total agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. The respondent No.4/Assistant Commissioner lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain a petition in respect of a registered gift deed executed before the commencement of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmities which would warrant interference at the hands of this Court."

Case Title: C. Kamalamma v.  P Gopal

Case No: Writ Appeal No.1170 of 2021

Date of Order: November 16, 2021.

Appearance:

Shashidhara H.N, for appellant

Advocate S.S.Mahendra, for R2 to R4;

Advocate M.Shivaprakash, C/R1

Click Here To Read/Download Order