Maintenance Tribunal Cannot Cancel Gift Deed Merely On Vague Averments By Senior Citizens: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court observed that the Maintenance Tribunal cannot cancel a gift deed merely on vague averments made by senior citizens.

The Court held thus in a writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal by which the gift deed in respect of the property executed, was cancelled and this order was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

A Single Bench of Justice R.M. Joshi observed, “In absence of specific ground being raised as contemplated by Section 23 of the Act of not been provided with basic amenities and physical need, on vague averment and without recording any finding to that effect, it would not be open for the Maintenance Tribunal to cancel the gift deed executed by respondent No.1. This Court, therefore, finds substance in the contention of the petitioners that this application is filed under Section 23 of the Act in order to seek cancellation of the gift bypassing the procedure of adjudication for such declaration before the competent Civil Court, which is wholly impermissible in law.”

The Bench added that if such circumvention of the due procedure for challenging validity of any document is allowed, the same will lead to injustice, as without adjudication of such issue of challenge to the document, same would stand cancelled.

Advocate R.P. Walvekar represented the petitioners while AGP A.A. Nadkarni and Advocate Sanjeev Sawant represented the respondents.

In this case, the issue arose was as to whether it is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to decide the issue about a gift or any document being obtained from senior citizen by fraud and whether the proceeding under Section 23 of the said Act, can be used to seek declaration of any document/transfer as cancelled bypassing process of adjudication of real dispute regarding validity of transaction.

The petitioner no.1 was the son-in-law of the respondent and the petitioner no.2 was her daughter. As per the petitioners, the respondent was residing with them and had voluntarily out of love and affection, executed a registered gift deed in their favour. The respondent’s husband had instituted a suit against the petitioner no.1 and respondent for declaration and injunction. A complaint was filed before the Tribunal against the petitioners and respondent no.2 (sister of petitioner no.1) contending that the respondent was getting monthly pension of Rs. 30,000/-. It was alleged that the petitioners obtained gift deed by playing fraud upon her. The Tribunal passed an order whereby the gift deed was cancelled for the reason tha the petitioners were not maintaining the respondent. As the Appellate Authority upheld this order, the petitioners approached the High Court.

The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “In order to appreciate the manner in which the Tribunal has considered the case of respondent No.1, impugned order in entirety needs to be taken into account and not the final decision arrived at. The Tribunal, while passing order, directing cancellation of the gift deed has mainly relied upon the grounds for challenge to the validity of the execution of the document. It is only incidentally a passing reference has been made about the senior citizen not being maintained by the petitioners.”

The Court further held that the dispute with regard to validity of execution of document cannot be gone into in the proceeding under Section 23 even indirectly/incidentally and that this proceeding can never be allowed to become an alternative/bypass to the challenge of validity of document before a Civil Court.

“… learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, has made statement that respondent No.1 has a right to reside in the subject property during her lifetime and that she will not be evicted therefrom for any reason whatsoever. This statement is accepted as an undertaking. In order to implement this undertaking in true spirit, petitioners are hereby restrained from creating any third party interest in the subject property in any manner whatsoever, during lifetime of respondent No.1”, it said.

The Court also clarified that it is open for the respondent to challenge the execution of the gift deed on every permissible ground available in law before the competent court.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order to the extent of cancellation of gift deed, and restrained the petitioners from creating any third-party interest in the property in any manner during the respondent’s lifetime.

Cause Title- Nandkishor Shivdin Sahu & Anr. v. Sanjeevani Naresh Patil & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:36133)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates R.P. Walvekar and Sangramsinhh Yadav.

Respondents: AGP A.A. Nadkarni, Advocates Sanjeev Sawant, Abhishek Deshmukh, Bhakti Wast, and Samir Suryawanshi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment