Karnataka HC Revives Daughter’s Gift Deed For Now, Remands Father’s Senior Citizens Act Plea Amid Pending Suit Over Same Property

The petitioner, daughter of respondent No. 3, received a registered gift deed dated 17 December 2009 concerning agricultural property; her siblings later executed a registered confirmation deed

After nearly 13 years, respondent No. 3 applied to the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 5 and 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the gift deed. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application on 16 November 2023

The petitioner challenged that order, arguing, among other things, that respondent No. 3 had already filed a civil suit seeking substantially similar relief and that she had not had a sufficient opportunity to present her case

The High Court also noted that the Assistant Commissioner proceeded on 2 November 2023 despite respondent No. 3’s absence, and had not issued notice to the siblings who executed the confirmation deed

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the Assistant Commissioner’s order

Respondent No. 3’s application before the Assistant Commissioner was brought under Sections 5 and 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

The Court applied the principle that, in the circumstances of this case, the matter required fresh consideration after the parties were afforded a reasonable opportunity to place relevant material before the Assistant Commissioner

The judgment cited no precedent and did not set out a broader interpretation of the statutory provisions.

The Court considered the pending civil suit concerning substantially similar relief, the petitioner’s claim that she had been unable to present relevant documents, and the confirmation deed executed by her siblings

It also noted that those siblings had not been given notice before the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the application

In light of these circumstances, the Court concluded that the dispute should be reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner after hearing the parties and considering the relevant material

Until disposal of the application, the petitioner was restrained from alienating the subject property; respondent No. 3 was given liberty to file a necessary application concerning interim maintenance by the petitioner