Karnataka HC Restores Father’s Gift To Daughter After His Other Daughter Agrees To Care For Him

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s and Appellate Authority’s orders cancelling the petitioner’s gift deed should be quashed in light of the parties’ compromise.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition in terms of the compromise, quashed the Tribunal’s order dated 4 September 2023 and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 22 February 2024, and restored the gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

It also directed

It recorded Respondent No. 5’s undertaking to care for Respondent No. 1 and left the separate proceedings concerning the later gift deed open.

01Facts

The petitioner and Respondent No. 5 are daughters of Respondent No. 1.

p. 3

Respondent No. 1 had executed a registered gift deed in the petitioner’s favour on 17 November 2017.

p. 3

The Maintenance Tribunal, acting under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, declared the deed void; the Appellate Authority affirmed that order.

p. 3

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226.

p. 3

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner and Respondents Nos. 1 and 5 filed a compromise: Respondent No. 1 confirmed the 2017 gift deed, and Respondent No. 5 agreed to care for his needs, maintenance and welfare.

pp. 3–9

Respondent No. 1 had separately initiated proceedings concerning a later gift deed executed in favour of his daughter-in-law; the High Court left those proceedings open.

pp. 3–9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s and Appellate Authority’s orders cancelling the petitioner’s gift deed should be quashed in light of the parties’ compromise.

pp. 3, 7–10

ii.2. Whether the Court should determine the validity of the later gift deed executed in favour of Respondent No. 1’s daughter-in-law in this writ petition.

pp. 7–9

03Law Applied

The Court acted under Article 226 of the Constitution and considered the parties’ compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as identified in the compromise petition.

p. 4

Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was invoked in the underlying Tribunal proceedings and in the petitioner’s prayer; the Court did not set out or apply a substantive test under that provision.

pp. 3–9

The Court stated that Respondent No. 1 could resort to the procedure under the Act if the compromise terms were violated.

p. 9

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Section 23

04Reasoning

The Court recorded that the parties had reached an amicable settlement, under which Respondent No. 1 confirmed the petitioner’s gift deed and Respondent No. 5 undertook to provide for Respondent No. 1’s physical needs, maintenance and welfare.

pp. 4–8

On that basis, it disposed of the writ petition in terms of the compromise and quashed the challenged orders.

pp. 8–10

It did not adjudicate the validity of the later gift deed, observing that proceedings concerning it were already before the Assistant Commissioner and could continue independently.

pp. 8–10