The Bombay High Court underscores that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 should not be employed as a tool to resolve property disputes among the descendants of senior citizens.

The single headed bench of Justice Sandeep Marne made these remarks while adjudicating a writ petition filed by a man contesting the decision of the maintenance tribunal, which invalidated several gift deeds executed by his elderly father in his favor.

The petitioner claimed that his brother influenced their father to pursue the annulment of the gift deeds because he desires a portion of the flats that were gifted.

In February, the petitioner's father, who is a senior citizen, submitted an application to the Maintenance Tribunal seeking the return of several properties he had gifted to the petitioner, along with a request for monthly maintenance payments amounting to Rs. 50,000.

In his application, the petitioner's father asserted that he has three sons, and following the passing of his wife, his son Nitin (the petitioner) executed four Gift Deeds for several immovable properties on his behalf and also acquired possession of additional properties. He alleged that subsequent to the execution of these Gift Deeds, the petitioner began mistreating him by dismissing all the household staff and confining him to a single room.

The Tribunal partially granted the application, ruling the gift deeds as null and void, and directed the petitioner (Nitin) to vacate three of the flats and relinquish possession to his father. Consequently, the petitioners sought recourse from the High Court by contesting this decision.

The court observed that the petitioner's father did not hold full ownership over the three flats since they were originally acquired jointly with his wife. Following her demise, her share was equally inherited by him and their three sons. Notably, only two of the sons, including the petitioner, relinquished their shares to their father, while the third son retained ownership of his shares.

Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner's father did not possess complete ownership of any of the three flats, and the revocation of the four Gift Deeds would not confer absolute ownership upon him.

According to Section 23(1), if a property transfer is conditioned upon the transferee providing basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, the transfer can be deemed void by the Tribunal at the option of the transferor if it is established that the transfer occurred under fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

The court noted that all four Gift Deeds were executed with a specific provision that the petitioner must not impede his father's occupation, residence, and enjoyment of the gifted flats. The court expressed the opinion that the provision of residence constitutes a basic amenity and a fundamental physical need for a senior citizen.

Therefore, even though the gift deeds do not explicitly state that they were executed subject to the condition of providing basic amenities and physical needs, the court ruled that the presence of such a condition can be inferred due to the covenant for providing residence to the father, as well as the petitioner's acknowledgment of the responsibility to provide residence to him.

The court noted that since the father was not the exclusive owner of the flats in question and had not provided any consideration for the shares of the flats, those shares could not be returned to him by nullifying the gift deeds.

The father's primary grievance cantered around being denied residence in the gifted flats, prompting him to relocate and reside with another son in Ahmedabad. The Maintenance Tribunal declined to grant monthly maintenance to the father, citing his omission to include all three sons in the legal proceedings. Nevertheless, the petitioner expressed readiness to arrange alternative residence in different flats and provide monthly maintenance.

The court noted that Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act aims to secure basic amenities for seniors, rather than nullify legitimate transfers. Consequently, the court overturned the Maintenance Tribunal's ruling nullifying the gift deeds. Instead, it instructed the petitioner to afford his father accommodation in one of the flats, along with a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 25,000.

Senior Advocate GS Godbole along with advocates Manuj Borkar and Prasad D Borkar represented the petitioner.

Advocates Ameet Mehta, Sheetal Pandya and Pratiksha Udeshi represented the petitioner's father.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 590 of 2023

Case Title – Nitin Rajendra Gupta v. Deputy Collector, Mumbai and Ors.