Mother-In-Law’s 2003 Gift To Late Son Can’t Be Cancelled Under Senior Citizens Act, Karnataka HC Rules

Respondent No. 6, the petitioner’s mother-in-law, executed a registered gift deed of the schedule property in favour of the petitioner’s husband on 31 December 2003; the khata was thereafter mutated in his name.

Following his death in 2018, the petitioner and her children were entered in the revenue records.

Respondent No. 6 later applied under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the gift deed and compensation.

The Assistant Commissioner and President of the Council allowed the application and directed the Chief Municipal Officer to register the khata in respondent No. 6’s name.

The petitioner challenged that order by writ petition.

Section 23(1) of the Act applies where a senior citizen, after commencement of the Act, transfers property subject to a condition that the transferee provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee fails to do so; in those circumstances, the transfer may, at the transferor’s option, be declared void by the Tribunal.

The Act came into force on 29 December 2007, and Section 23 cannot be invoked to invalidate a transfer made before that date.

The Court followed the Karnataka High Court Division Bench decision in Smt. C. Kamalamma v. Sri P. Gopal and Others, W.A. No. 1170/2021 (GM-RES), decided 16 November 2021, which held that Section 23 does not apply to registered gift deeds executed before the Act commenced.

The gift deed was executed on 31 December 2003, several years before the Act came into force.

Because Section 23(1) expressly concerns a transfer made after commencement of the Act, respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction under that provision to entertain respondent No. 6’s application seeking cancellation of the deed.

Applying the Division Bench’s decision in C. Kamalamma, the Court held that the order directing the khata to be registered in respondent No. 6’s name could not stand.

It clarified that respondent No. 6 remained free to seek relief before the competent civil court and directed the authorities to restore the petitioner’s name in the revenue records in accordance with law.