Karnataka HC Upholds Cancellation Of Senior Citizen’s Land Release To Daughter, Refers Case To Income Tax Over ₹17.25-Lakh Cash Claim

Respondent No. 2, a senior citizen, executed a registered Release Deed dated 9 January 2025 in favour of his daughter, Petitioner No. 1. He later applied under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the deed.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application on 8 September 2025 and issued a corrigendum on 6 October 2025; the daughter and her husband challenged both orders. The petitioners relied on an Agreement of Sale, a receipt and an endorsement as evidence that the transfer was supported by consideration. Respondent No. 2 disputed the documents’ genuineness and denied receiving the alleged consideration.

Whether an express condition in the Release Deed requiring the releasee to maintain the releasor is necessary to invoke Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act.

Whether the Assistant Commissioner’s order suffered from an infirmity warranting interference by the High Court.

Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act permits a transfer by a senior citizen to be declared void where it was made subject to a condition that the transferee provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee refuses or fails to do so.

Relying on Sri Venkataiah v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 13313 of 2025, the Court held that the absence of an express maintenance clause in the transfer document does not, by itself, bar the authority from examining a Section 23 application; the alleged understanding or agreement and the surrounding circumstances must also be considered. The Court also relied on RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Another, 2025 INSC 490, in directing referral of the matter to the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax.

The Court found that Respondent No. 2’s asserted understanding that his daughter would care for him could not be rejected merely because the Release Deed contained no express maintenance condition; the pleaded understanding and the circumstances of the transfer were relevant.

On the disputed consideration, the Court noted that the receipt referred to a Will dated 9 August 2023 despite being dated 1 August 2023, and that it recorded payment to the daughter’s brothers rather than to Respondent No. 2. It also identified inconsistencies between the Agreement of Sale, the receipt and the later endorsement concerning when and to whom the full consideration was paid. Considered cumulatively, those matters, together with the absence of satisfactory supporting material, meant the petitioners had not established their claim that the transaction was supported by the asserted consideration or shown that the Assistant Commissioner’s order warranted interference.

It found no ground to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner’s order and dismissed the writ petition. The Court further directed the Registrar (Judicial) to forward the case file and order to the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Karnataka, for such action as deemed necessary under RBANMS Educational Institution.