Ashwin Ramesh Soni vs Ramesh Bachaulal Soni And Ors

bdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 13629 OF 2026
Ashwin Ramesh Soni, ]
Aged about 42 years, Occupation-Business, ]
R/at Flat No.1103, Yashashree CHS Ltd., ]
N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, ]
Mumbai – 400 011. ] … Petitioner.
Vs.
1. Ramesh Bachaulal Soni, ]
Age: 68 years, Occ-Business, ]
R/at – House No.35/45, Bal Hanuman ]
Nagar CHS, J.R. Boricha Marg, Opp. ]
Kasturba Hospital, Satrasta, Jacob ]
Circle, Mumbai – 400 011 ]
]
2. Beena Ramesh Soni, ]
Aged 60 years, Occ – Housewife, ]
R/at – House No.35/45, Bal Hanuman ]
Nagar CHS, J.R. Boricha Marg, Opp. ]
Kasturba Hospital, Satrasta Jacob Circle, ]
Mumbai – 400 011. ]
]
3. Presiding Officer, Maintenance and ]
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens ]
Tribunal-1, having office at Old Custom ]
House, Shahid Bhagat Sing Marg, Fort, ]
Mumbai – 400 001. ]
]
4. Additional Collector, Appellate Authority]
for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and ]
Senior Citizens Tribunal, having office at ]
Old Custom House, Shahid Bhagat Sing ]
Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ]
1/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

5. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Law Secretary, having Office ]
at Madam Cama Road, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai – 400032 ] …. Respondents.
Mr. Bhushan Ulhas Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Rajesh Singh a/w Mr. Rahul Singh and Mr. Iftekhar Sayed,
Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader a/w Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP
for State/Respondent No.5.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
ST
RESERVED ON : 1 JULY, 2026
TH

PRONOUNCED ON : 7 JULY, 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is
heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner is the son of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who
are senior citizens aged 68 and 60 years, respectively. The present
th
Petition challenges the order dated 13 April, 2026 passed by the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal-I and
Deputy Collector, Mumbai (“ Tribunal ”), in proceedings initiated by
2/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 under the provisions of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“ Act ”). By the
impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed the Application and inter
alia declared the registered Gift Deed bearing No. BBE-4-7360-2023
th
dated 8 May 2023, to be void. The Petitioner was directed to hand over
vacant and peaceful possession of flat no.1103, Yashashree Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd., N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013
(“Yashashree flat”) to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 within sixty days.
Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
3. The relevant facts for the purpose of this Petition are briefly
stated as follows:-
(i) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have four children, namely, the
Petitioner and three daughters, all of whom are married and
residing with their respective families. After his marriage,
the Petitioner initially resided with Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
th
(ii) On 25 March, 2005, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 purchased
the Yashashree flat, where they resided with the Petitioner.
3/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

th
(iii) On 11 December, 2020, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
purchased another residential flat, being flat no.B-2308,
Monte South Pilatus, Khatau Mill Compound, Byculla,
Mumbai – 400008. This flat was jointly purchased along
with the Petitioner and Petitioner’s wife, with each of them
owning 25% share in the said flat.
(iv) Around the year 2020, serious disputes arose between the
Petitioner and Respondent Nos.1 and 2. According to
Respondent Nos.1 and 2, with the intervention of family
and well-wishers, an understanding was arrived at in or
about March, 2023 whereby the Petitioner agreed to look
after and maintain his parents in all respect and Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 agreed to transfer the Yashashree flat in his
favour. In an attempt to restore harmony within the family,
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 executed and registered two Gift
th
Deeds dated 8 May, 2023 in respect of both the aforesaid
flats. The stamp duty and registration charges for the
transactions were borne by Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
(v) The family arrangement did not last long. Soon thereafter,
relations between the parties deteriorated, compelling
4/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to vacate the Yashashree flat,
which had been their residence. The Monte South flat was
then under construction and since it had already been gifted
to the Petitioner, the developer refused to hand over its
possession to Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Left without any
residence, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted proceedings
before the Tribunal under Sections 5 and 23 of the Act,
seeking cancellation of Gift Deeds for both the flats and
consequential reliefs, including restoration of possession of
the properties and return of their personal documents, bank
passbooks, ATM cards, GST records and other belongings.
th
(vi) By the impugned order dated 13 April, 2026, the Tribunal
partly allowed the Application. The impugned order
th
directed cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 8 May, 2023
with respect to Yashashree flat and further directed the
Petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of
the Yashashree flat to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 within 60
days of the order. No orders are passed for cancellation of
the Gift Deed of the Monte South flat. The said flat is not a
subject matter of this Petition.
5/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

4. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, assails the impugned order mainly on the ground that it does
not satisfy the requirements of Section 23(1) of the Act. He submits that
the Yashashree flat was, in fact, purchased by the Petitioner from his own
funds in the year 2005 and that the subsequent Gift Deed merely restored
title to its true owner, i.e., the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 is financially
independent, carries on a jewellery business and owns other immovable
properties. Thus, the Respondents are neither destitute nor incapable of
maintaining themselves. The Tribunal has also failed to record any
finding that the Petitioner has actually refused to maintain Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore the provisions of the Act are not attracted.

5. Mr. Deshmukh further submits that the proceedings before
the Tribunal have been initiated at the behest of the Petitioner's sisters
with an oblique motive to deprive the Petitioner of the gifted properties.
Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the Yashashree flat constitutes
the sole residence of the Petitioner, his wife and two children and
eviction from it would cause them grave hardship. On all these grounds,
it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, supports the impugned order and
6/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

submits that it is well-reasoned and as per section 23(1) of the Act. He
submits that both the flats were acquired by Respondent Nos.1 and 2
from their own resources and were voluntarily gifted to the Petitioner
solely to preserve family harmony and on the clear understanding that
the Petitioner would maintain and care for his aged parents throughout
their lifetime. Instead, due to persistent disputes, Respondent Nos.1 and
2 were compelled to leave their own residence, defeating the very object
for which the Gift Deeds had been executed. Hence, the Petition ought to
be dismissed with costs.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
7. We have perused the record and considered the rival
submissions. In our view, there is no merit in the present Petition.
8. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial and social welfare legislation enacted
to provide an expeditious remedy for the maintenance, welfare and
protection of senior citizens. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Act recognises the gradual erosion of the traditional joint family
system and the increasing vulnerability of elderly parents to neglect,
abandonment and deprivation of financial and emotional support. The
Act, therefore, creates an effective statutory mechanism not only to
7/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

secure maintenance, but also to protect the life and property of senior
citizens.
9. Section 23 of the Act falls under Chapter V – “Protection of
Life and Property of Senior Citizen”. For convenience, the same is
extracted:
“23. Transfer of property to be void in certain
circumstances
(1) Where any senior citizen who, after the
commencement of this Act, has transferred by way
of gift or otherwise, his property, subject to the
condition that the transferee shall provide the
basic amenities and basic physical needs to the
transferor and such transferee refuses or fails to
provide such amenities and physical needs, the
said transfer of property shall be deemed to have
been made by fraud or coercion or under undue
influence and shall at the option of the transferor
be declared void by the Tribunal.
(2) Where any senior citizen has a right to receive
maintenance out of an estate and such estate or
part thereof is transferred, the right to receive
maintenance may be enforced against the
transferee if the transferee has notice of the right,
or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the
transferee for consideration and without notice of
right.
(3) If, any senior citizen is incapable of enforcing the
rights under sub-sections (1) and (2), action may
be taken on his behalf by any of the organisation
referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of
section 5.”
8/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

10. Section 23 of the Act embodies the legislative recognition
that transfers made by elderly parents in favour of their children or
relatives are often motivated by love, affection and the legitimate
expectation that they would be cared for in their advancing years. A plain
reading of Section 23(1) shows that the Tribunal may declare a transfer
void where two essential requirements are fulfilled, namely, (i) the
property is transferred by the senior citizen subject to the condition that
the transferee would provide the transferor with basic amenities and
physical needs; and (ii) the transferee has refused or failed to discharge
that obligation. Upon satisfaction of these conditions, the statute creates
a legal fiction by deeming the transfer to have been brought about by
fraud, coercion or undue influence, thereby entitling the senior citizen to
avoid the transfer. Examined in the light of the above statutory
framework, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.
11. A perusal of the Gift Deed demonstrates that Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 had gifted the property on the express promise and
agreement that the Petitioners shall take care of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
in all respect after execution of the Gift Deed. The relevant clauses in the
recitals of the Gift Deed make this position clear and for convenience are
extracted:
9/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

‘B) The Donors hereby relinquished his rights, title and
interest of the said Flat Premise in favour of the Donee
forever.
C) The Donee shall and will hereafter hold, possess, use,
occupy and enjoy the said shares of the said Flat
Premise in the aforesaid manner for his own use and
benefit without any suit, lawful eviction, interruption,
claim or demand whatsoever made by the Donors or
any person claiming through or on behalf of the
Donors.
F) The Donee have agreed and shall take care in all
respect of the Donors after the execution of this Gift
Deed.’
The Gift Deed for the Monte South flat also records
identical obligation. Thus, the first essential condition of Section 23(1) is
fully satisfied in the present case.
12. As regards the second essential requirement under Section
23(1) of the Act, the record demonstrates that the mutual arrangement on
the basis of which Gift Deeds were executed completely failed. Instead
of ensuring security and care to his parents, the relationship deteriorated
to such an extent that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were compelled to vacate
their own residence. This is sufficient for invoking Section 23 of the Act.
The Monte South flat, which had also been transferred to the Petitioner,
was unavailable to them as the developer declined to hand over
possession after the transfer. Consequently, Respondent Nos.1 and 2
10/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

were left without the benefit of either property. These facts clearly
establish the Petitioner's failure to fulfill the very obligation which
constituted the foundation of the gift. We find no perversity or
jurisdictional error in the conclusions of the impugned order, which are
based on factual assertions.
13. The submission that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are financially
independent or possess other assets is misconceived. The applicability of
Section 23 does not depend upon the financial status of the senior
citizen. Once the statutory conditions of Section 23 are satisfied, the
transfer can be declared as void. Equally untenable is the Petitioner's
contention that the Yashashree flat was purchased from his own funds
and that the Gift Deeds merely restored title to its true owner. These are
bald assertions and contrary to Recitals of the Gift Deed. Such oral pleas
cannot be accepted in view of the written document. The Tribunal was,
therefore, fully justified in proceeding on the basis of the admitted title
of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
14. The allegation that the proceedings have been instituted at
the behest of the Petitioner's sisters is disputed. Such allegations neither
detract from the statutory jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal nor
11/12
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt

constitute a ground to interfere with its findings in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The Petitioner's offer to now maintain Respondent Nos.1
and 2 or to accommodate them in the Yashashree flat also does not
advance his case. Such belated and subsequent offer cannot revive a
transfer which the statute deems to have been vitiated by fraud, coercion
or undue influence.
15. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution, does not sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate
factual findings in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity.
The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error,
violation of principles of natural justice or patent illegality warranting
interference.
16. We therefore find no merit in the Petition. The Writ
Petition is dismissed . The Petitioner shall forthwith comply with the
directions issued by the Tribunal.
17. Rule is discharged .
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO
THOTE
12/12
Digitally signed by
SUNNY ANKUSHRAO
THOTE
Date: 2026.07.07
15:31:42 +0530
916 WPST-13629-26-.odt