Senior Citizen's Gift Deed To Son Cannot Be Annulled If It Has No Condition That Son Should Take Care Of Father's Necessities During His Lifetime: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court reiterated that a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favor of his son cannot be annulled by the Senior Citizen Tribunal if the deed does not have a condition that the son should take care of the necessities basic or otherwise of the father during his life time.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was dealing with a case which revolves around a property initially gifted by Srinivas, a senior citizen, to his son, CS Harsha, in 2019. Prior to this, Srinivas had executed a gift deed in favor of his wife in 2000, which was subsequently passed on to his son following her demise in 2015. With the son's name duly recorded in all revenue records, he later sold the property to Vivek Jain, the Petitioner in this case.

Challenging this sale, Srinivas invoked Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking to set aside both the gift deed and the subsequent sale deed. The Assistant Commissioner acceded to this request, prompting the petitioner, Vivek Jain, to file a Petition contesting the order. 

During the proceedings, Vivek Jain argued that the gift deed did not impose any conditions necessitating the Assistant Commissioner's intervention. Furthermore, he contended that the Assistant Commissioner exceeded his authority by annulling the sale deed executed in his favor.

In defense, Counsel for Srinivas contended that following his wife's demise, Srinivas assumed ownership of the property, leading him to gift it to his son. However, the Petitioner countered this argument, asserting that such actions were legally untenable, as property rights would have devolved to all family members upon the wife's passing.

Examining the case, the Single-Judge Bench observed that Srinivas enjoyed possession of the property for over four years following his wife's demise before gifting it to his son in 2019. Notably, all encumbrances on the property were cleared, and the son subsequently sold it to the petitioner. Moreover, proceeds from the sale were distributed to Srinivas, including a deposit made in the Life Insurance Corporation of India and monthly remittances to his bank account.

Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi (2022), the Court held that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to nullify the gift deed without specific conditions stipulated therein. Therefore, the Court overturned the Assistant Commissioner's ruling, upholding the legality of the property sale.

Addressing the Petitioner's right to challenge the Assistant Commissioner's order, the Court affirmed that Vivek Jain had a valid stake in the matter, having acquired the property lawfully.Furthermore, the Bench underscored that leaving the petitioner without recourse to legal remedy would be unjust, particularly given the circumstances. "If he is to be driven to the civil Court, the present order of the Assistant Commissioner will always stare at him, as he has lost the property by a stroke of pen, of the Assistant Commissioner, which I have found fault with, following the afore-quoted judgments. Therefore, the petitioner does have all the right to call the said order of the Assistant Commissioner in question before this Court, as he cannot be left remediless," the Court said. 

However, the Court refrained from adjudicating on the issue of property devolution following the wife's demise, leaving it open for resolution in a civil court. Additionally, acknowledging the rising cost of living, the Court directed the son to increase the maintenance payment to his father.

While allowing the Writ Petition, the Court ordered, "The donor of the gift deed is held entitled to maintenance at `10,000/- to be paid by the 4th respondent/son apart from 10,000/- that the deposit with the LIC is earning, with liberty to seek enhancement of maintenance on any warranting circumstance, before the Assistant Commissioner."

Cause Title: Vivek Jain v. The Deputy Commissioner and Ors. [WRIT PETITION No.14704 OF 2021 (GM - RES)]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta, Advocate Narendra P. R.

Respondent: AGA Navya Shekhar, Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar, Advocates Srikanth M., Satyanarayana Reddy

Click here to read/download the Order