Grandfather’s Gift To Grandsons Remains Uncancelled For Now As Karnataka HC Finds No Senior Citizens Act Care Condition Established

The Senior Citizen executed a registered gift deed of the subject property in favour of his grandsons, Respondents 4 and 5, on 13 March 2017.

In 2022, he applied to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, alleging that the donees had misled him into signing documents by representing that they were required to obtain government benefits for him.

The Assistant Commissioner cancelled the gift deed. The donees challenged that order, and the learned Single Judge allowed their writ petition.

The Senior Citizen died while the matter was pending; the present appeal was brought by family members, who also had a pending civil partition suit concerning the property.

Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 applies where a senior citizen transfers property subject to a condition that the transferee provide the transferor’s basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee then refuses or fails to do so; both requirements must be established for the transfer to be declared void.

The condition need not be expressly written into the conveyance; it may be established by sufficient evidence.

An allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, without establishing the statutory care condition, does not by itself bring the transfer within Section 23(1).

The Senior Citizen’s application sought to invalidate the gift deed on the basis that he had been deceived into believing he was signing papers to obtain government benefits; it was not founded on an arrangement requiring the donees to provide his basic needs.

The Court therefore held that the statutory condition under Section 23(1) was not satisfied.

It clarified, however, that the condition need not appear expressly in the deed: the Single Judge’s contrary reasoning on that point was incorrect, as was the finding that the application contained no prayer to declare the deed void.

Those errors did not affect the result because the Assistant Commissioner’s cancellation could not be sustained under Section 23(1). The Court did not decide whether the Assistant Commissioner had other powers to protect the Senior Citizen’s property.

The appeal was disposed of, with the parties’ rights and contentions—including whether the gift deed was fraudulently executed—reserved for determination in the pending civil proceedings; the Court’s orders do not preclude that issue from being raised there.